Socilaized Legal system

[basso]

if i weren't sure he'd passed on 10 years ago, i'd swear my old man wrote this: (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204731804574387021307651050.html)

and i will say that ANY health reform, whether of the Care or Insurance variety, that does not include tort reform, is not a serious plan.

A Doctor's Plan for Legal Industry Reform
My modest proposal to rearrange how lawyers do business.

By RICHARD B. RAFAL

Since we are moving toward socialism with ObamaCare, the time has come to do the same with other professions—especially lawyers. Physician committees can decide whether lawyers are necessary in any given situation.

At a town-hall meeting in Portsmouth, N.H., last month, our uninformed lawyer in chief suggested that we physicians would rather chop off a foot than manage diabetes since we would make more money doing surgery. Then President Obama compounded his attack by claiming a doctor's reimbursement is between "$30,000" and "$50,000" for such amputations! (Actually, such surgery costs only about $1,500.)

Physicians have never been so insulted. Because of these affronts, I will gladly volunteer for the important duty of controlling and regulating lawyers. Since most of what lawyers do is repetitive boilerplate or pushing paper, physicians would have no problem dictating what is appropriate for attorneys. We physicians know much more about legal practice than lawyers do about medicine.

Following are highlights of a proposed bill authorizing the dismantling of the current framework of law practice and instituting socialized legal care:

• Contingency fees will be discouraged, and eventually outlawed, over a five-year period. This will put legal rewards back into the pockets of the deserving—the public and the aggrieved parties. Slick lawyers taking their "cut" smacks of a bookie operation. Attorneys will be permitted to keep up to 3% in contingency cases, the remainder going into a pool for poor people.

• Legal "DRGs." Each potential legal situation will be assigned a relative value, and charges limited to this amount. Program participation and acceptance of this amount is mandatory, regardless of the number of hours spent on the matter. Government schedules of flat fees for each service, analogous to medicine's Diagnosis Related Groups (DRGs), will be issued. For example, any divorce will have a set fee of, say, $1,000, regardless of its simplicity or complexity. This will eliminate shady hourly billing. Niggling fees such as $2 per page photocopied or faxed would disappear. Who else nickels-and-dimes you while at the same time charging hundreds of dollars per hour? I'm surprised lawyers don't tack shipping and handling onto their bills.

• Legal "death panels." Over 75? You will not be entitled to legal care for any matter. Why waste money on those who are only going to die soon? We can decrease utilization, save money and unclog the courts simultaneously. Grandma, you're on your own.

• Ration legal care. One may need to wait months to consult an attorney. Despite a perceived legal need, physician review panels or government bureaucrats may deem advice unnecessary. Possibly one may not get representation before court dates or deadlines. But that' s tough: What do you want for "free"?

• Physician controlled legal review. This is potentially the most exciting reform, with doctors leading committees for determining the necessity of all legal procedures and the fairness of attorney fees. What a wonderful way for doctors to get even with the sharks attempting to eviscerate the practice of medicine.

• Discourage/eliminate specialization. Legal specialists with extra training and experience charge more money, contributing to increased costs of legal care, making it unaffordable for many. This reform will guarantee a selection of mediocre, unmotivated attorneys but should help slow rising legal costs. Big shot under indictment? Classified National Archives documents down your pants? Sitting president defending against impeachment? Have FBI agents found $90,000 in your freezer? Too bad. Under reform you too may have to go to the government legal shop for advice.

• Electronic legal records. We should enter the digital age and computerize and centralize legal records nationwide. All files must be in a standard, preferably inconvenient, format and must be available to government agencies. A single database of judgments, court records, client files, etc. will decrease legal expenses. Anyone with Internet access will be able to search the database, eliminating unjustifiable fees charged by law firms for supposedly proprietary information, while fostering transparency. It will enable consumers to dump their clunker attorneys and transfer records easily.

• Ban legal advertisements. Catchy phone numbers such as 1-800-LAWYERS would be seized by the government and repurposed for reporting unscrupulous attorneys.

• New government oversight. Government overhead to manage the legal system will include a cabinet secretary, commissioners, ombudsmen, auditors, assistants, czars and departments.

• Collect data about the supply of and demand for attorneys.Create a commission to study the diversity and geographic distribution of attorneys, with power to stipulate and enforce corrective actions to right imbalances. The more bureaucracy the better. One can never have too many eyes watching these sleazy sneaks.

• Lawyer Reduction Act (H.R. -3200). A self-explanatory bill that not only decreases the number of law students, but also arbitrarily removes 3,200 attorneys from practice each year. Textbook addition by subtraction.

Enthusiastically embracing the above legal changes can serve as a "teachable moment" and will go a long way toward giving the lawyers who run Congress a taste of their own medicine.

[Batman Jones]

Jesus, dude! Do you think you have to start a new thread every time you read something? If you're not banned for your trolling or your continual use of political signatures, you should be banned for bandwidth violations.

[pgabriel]

This is soooooo stupid but I do have to ask one question, who's saying Doctors' pay will be regulated? the wingers are out of control. they make up all these things like Death Panels, and then they write satire on something they made up. head exploding

[basso]

This is soooooo stupid but I do have to ask one question, who's saying Doctors' pay will be regulated? the wingers are out of control. they make up all these things like Death Panels, and then they right satire on something they made up. head exploding

ask 10 doctors, i wager 9 will tell you fees will be regulated, and their income (Pay) is certainly affected by the rates they can charge.

[Batman Jones]

ask 10 doctors, i wager 9 will tell you fees will be regulated, and their income (Pay) is certainly affected by the rates they can charge.

A wager from you is worth less than zero. Every time you're proven wrong (which is literally every time), you go poof.

[pgabriel]

ask 10 doctors, i wager 9 will tell you fees will be regulated, and their income (Pay) is certainly affected by the rates they can charge.


who cares what they say, that's not proven and that's not what the bill is about.

[basso]

A wager from you is worth less than zero. Every time you're proven wrong (which is literally every time), you go poof.

really? pretty sure i offered you a bet during the election, one that you never accepted- might have been sam- you all look alike to me.

[vlaurelio]

doctors provide a universal necessecity
lawyers don't

[basso]

who cares what they say, that's not proven and that's not what the bill is about.

point is, you're saying the wingers are spreading lie, are idiots, etc. just guessing, but i bet some doctors are reasonably intelligent, and some might even get their news from someplace other than fox.

[basso]

doctors provide a universal necessecity
lawyers don't

should the government run all programs that are "universally necessary?" housing? food production?

[thegary]

As I walk through
This wicked world
Searchin for light in the darkness of insanity.

I ask myself
Is all hope lost?
Is there only pain and hatred, and misery?

And each time I feel like this inside,
Theres one thing I wanna know:
Whats so funny bout peace love & understanding? ohhhh
Whats so funny bout peace love & understanding?

And as I walked on
Through troubled times
My spirit gets so downhearted sometimes
So where are the strong
And who are the trusted?
And where is the harmony?
Sweet harmony.

cause each time I feel it slippin away, just makes me wanna cry.
Whats so funny bout peace love & understanding? ohhhh
Whats so funny bout peace love & understanding?

So where are the strong?
And who are the trusted?
And where is the harmony?
Sweet harmony.

cause each time I feel it slippin away, just makes me wanna cry.
Whats so funny bout peace love & understanding? ohhhh
Whats so funny bout peace love & understanding? ohhhh
Whats so funny bout peace love & understanding?

[Batman Jones]

really? pretty sure i offered you a bet during the election, one that you never accepted- might have been sam- you all look alike to me.

And now I will offer you one of similar seriousness. If you can guess how many fingers I'm holding up I will make the Eiffel Tower disappear. If not, you will admit you are a frustrated loser and leave us the hell alone. Ready? OKAY!

[vlaurelio]

should the government run all programs that are "universally necessary?" housing? food production?

HUD? food stamps?

[pgabriel]

are doctor fees regulated by medicare?

[basso]

HUD? food stamps?

you would expand HUD to cover everyone, require everyone to participate of be fined?

[basso]

are doctor fees regulated by medicare?

they're only reimbursed for a portion of the fee, whatever Usual and Customary is. they're responsible for collecting the difference, if they can- usually, the bill is adjusted to what medicare, or other insurance, pays. lawyers should have the same privilege, shouldn't they?

[pgabriel]

they're only reimbursed for a portion of the fee, whatever Usual and Customary is. they're responsible for collecting the difference, if they can- usually, the bill is adjusted to what medicare, or other insurance, pays. lawyers should have the same privilege, shouldn't they?


so what's a better system, private insurance that tries as much as possible to avoid procedure in the first place or a plan that allows the procedures and partially pays

[Zac D]

if i weren't sure he'd passed on 10 years ago, i'd swear my old man wrote this: (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204731804574387021307651050.html)

and i will say that ANY health reform, whether of the Care or Insurance variety, that does not include tort reform, is not a serious plan.

What do you want from tort reform?

[basso]

so what's a better system, private insurance that tries as much as possible to avoid procedure in the first place or a plan that allows the procedures and partially pays

who said those are the only two choices?

[pgabriel]

Tort reform is not an issue. Insurance premiums for malpractice have gone up with all insurance rates, due to loss on on investments. there has not been a significant increase in lawsuits or payouts on lawsuits.

[basso]

What do you want from tort reform?

an end to venue shopping is a good start, caps on damages.

[rocketsjudoka]

doctors provide a universal necessecity
lawyers don't

Everyone hates lawyers until they need one.

[basso]

Tort reform is not an issue. Insurance premiums for malpractice have gone up with all insurance rates, due to loss on on investments. there has not been a significant increase in lawsuits or payouts on lawsuits.

again, ask any doctor whether the cost of malpractice insurance contributes to the cost of health care. then ask whether the cost of malpractice insurance is related to frivolous law suits. then ask whether unnecessary tests, which cost money, are often ordered due to concerns about a potential lawsuit.

[basso]

Everyone hates lawyers until they need one.

i deal w/ atty's every day. in this case, i happen to have some personal insight into how the medical profession views the legal profession.

[Zac D]

an end to venue shopping is a good start, caps on damages.

Well, but there are already limits on where a suit can be brought. And caps on damages - well, if a doctor screws up on a baby and creates a lifetime of medical bills that exceeds your cap, doesn't that seem wrong? "You're out of luck; your botched surgery occurred when you were too young, so you're on the hook for all your expenses after you turn 25."

[rocketsjudoka]

again, ask any doctor whether the cost of malpractice insurance contributes to the cost of health care. then ask whether the cost of malpractice insurance is related to frivolous law suits. then ask whether unnecessary tests, which cost money, are often ordered due to concerns about a potential lawsuit.

I have no doubt that malpractice insurance ads to the cost of health care but tort reform, at least what was implemented in Texas, didn't lower the cost of health care.

On the subject I will point out how ironic it is about people arguing about liberty when at the same time they want to put checks on one of the most effective way for individuals to address wrongs, lawsuits.

[MoonDogg]

http://i711.photobucket.com/albums/ww119/cerberus714/caveman-lawyer.jpg

[Lonestar28]

i deal w/ atty's every day. in this case, i happen to have some personal insight into how the medical profession views the legal profession.

So do I and the cost of health care has not fallen in Texas since tort reform was passed in 2003. I have a doctor friend in Dallas and his premiums continue to rise for malpractice coverage even though medical malpractice is almost dead in Texas.

The correlation of the high cost of health care and malpractice suits is a myth.

[basso]

I have no doubt that malpractice insurance ads to the cost of health care but tort reform, at least what was implemented in Texas, didn't lower the cost of health care.

On the subject I will point out how ironic it is about people arguing about liberty when at the same time they want to put checks on one of the most effective way for individuals to address wrongs, lawsuits.

i don't know how it was implemented in texas, but to say it didn't work here, therefor it can't work elsewhere, is not correct.

[Deckard]

again, ask any doctor whether the cost of malpractice insurance contributes to the cost of health care. then ask whether the cost of malpractice insurance is related to frivolous law suits. then ask whether unnecessary tests, which cost money, are often ordered due to concerns about a potential lawsuit.
I'll regret this, but you actually seem marginally engaged with the topic, basso, so I'll tell you what I think. "Tort reform" is a chimera. It was instituted in Texas after being called the "savior" of the state's medical system. Prices would drop for malpractice insurance, costs for patients would stop increasing and everyone, except a large chunk of the legal profession, would be happy. To the best of my knowledge, none of that has happened. Yes, several plantiffs have recieved less than they probably should have received, but all that helped was the insurance industry's bottom line. What drives the cry for "tort reform?" The insurance industry and their contributions to politicians, from both parties.



edit: Lonestar28 just said much the same thing.

[basso]

I'll regret this, but you actually seem marginally engaged with the topic, basso, so I'll tell you what I think. "Tort reform" is a chimera. It was instituted in Texas after being called the "savior" of the state's medical system. Prices would drop for malpractice insurance, costs for patients would stop increasing and everyone, except a large chunk of the legal profession, would be happy. To the best of my knowledge, none of that has happened. Yes, several plantiffs have recieved less than they probably should have received, but all that helped was the insurance industry's bottom line. What drives the cry for "tort reform?" The insurance industry and their contributions to politicians, from both parties.



edit: Lonestar28 just said much the same thing.

actually, it's the doctors, not the insurance companies, that are leading this cry.

[basso]

So do I and the cost of health care has not fallen in Texas since tort reform was passed in 2003. I have a doctor friend in Dallas and his premiums continue to rise for malpractice coverage even though medical malpractice is almost dead in Texas.

The correlation of the high cost of health care and malpractice suits is a myth.

it's the correlation between the high costs of malpractice insurance, and the cost of health care.

and, the cost of malpractice insurance is driving many doctors out of the profession, particularly OBGYNs.

[Lonestar28]

actually, it's the doctors, not the insurance companies, that are leading this cry.

BS. The cry for tort reform is always bankrolled by the insurance carriers.

[Lonestar28]

I'll regret this, but you actually seem marginally engaged with the topic, basso, so I'll tell you what I think. "Tort reform" is a chimera. It was instituted in Texas after being called the "savior" of the state's medical system. Prices would drop for malpractice insurance, costs for patients would stop increasing and everyone, except a large chunk of the legal profession, would be happy. To the best of my knowledge, none of that has happened. Yes, several plantiffs have recieved less than they probably should have received, but all that helped was the insurance industry's bottom line. What drives the cry for "tort reform?" The insurance industry and their contributions to politicians, from both parties.



edit: Lonestar28 just said much the same thing.

Agreed. I have a loved one that was denied her day in court by tort reform. The only thing tort reform helps is the carrier's bottom line.

[Major]

ask 10 doctors, i wager 9 will tell you fees will be regulated, and their income (Pay) is certainly affected by the rates they can charge.

If doctors don't like the rates the government offers, they can decline to accept the public plan patients. Problem solved.

[Major]

it's the correlation between the high costs of malpractice insurance, and the cost of health care.


And yet the evidence from the states that do have tort reform suggests there's no correlation.

[basso]

BS. The cry for tort reform is always bankrolled by the insurance carriers.

what can i tell you, my dad was a dr., my mom is, my step-mom too, and my older sister. my brother is a lawyer, and both sisters-in-law as well. none of them needs the insurance companies to tell them where they stand on the issue.

[Lonestar28]

what can i tell you, my dad was a dr., my mom is, my step-mom too, and my older sister. my brother is a lawyer, and both sisters-in-law as well. none of them needs the insurance companies to tell them where they stand on the issue.

What I can tell you is that the carriers always pony up the cash to get tort reform passed. Cash in the form of contributions to politicians, ads, etc... They aren't above paying a representative's homeowners claim in record time to get their way either. Call Joe Nixon's office he can tell you that.

[rocketsjudoka]

i don't know how it was implemented in texas, but to say it didn't work here, therefor it can't work elsewhere, is not correct.

True but do you have other evidence where it has been implemented and health care cost have gone down?

[Deckard]

what can i tell you, my dad was a dr., my mom is, my step-mom too, and my older sister. my brother is a lawyer, and both sisters-in-law as well. none of them needs the insurance companies to tell them where they stand on the issue.
I can understand why that would color your thoughts about the subject. Sadly, when I use personal anecdotes to support my take on various issues, few from your side of the aisle seem to take them seriously (and plenty from mine, probably!). Yet I know several Republicans appalled with the direction of the GOP. I've had several tell me it's been captured by the far-right wing of their party. That they are appalled by the rhetoric and tactics used by that wing of their party and by the gullible who listen. All true, yet I don't have a link. Do you buy it?

[Oski2005]

We've got tort reform in Texas, yet our insurance keeps going up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up

[basso]

I can understand why that would color your thoughts about the subject. Sadly, when I use personal anecdotes to support my take on various issues, few from your side of the aisle seem to take them seriously (and plenty from mine, probably!). Yet I know several Republicans appalled with the direction of the GOP. I've had several tell me it's been captured by the far-right wing of their party. That they are appalled by the rhetoric and tactics used by that wing of their party and by the gullible who listen. All true, yet I don't have a link. Do you buy it?

sure- i'm appalled by both parties for the most part. and i refuse to belong to either.

[Deckard]

sure- i'm appalled by both parties for the most part. and i refuse to belong to either.
Then why do you expend so much time and energy supporting one party here? There is hardly anything remotely like a balance in the multitudinous threads you start.

[rocketsjudoka]

sure- i'm appalled by both parties for the most part. and i refuse to belong to either.

Yet you only criticize one...

[Batman Jones]

Yet you only criticize one...

Well, he's a serial liar on this board so one more lie should come as no surprise.

[basso]

Then why do you expend so much time and energy supporting one party here? There is hardly anything remotely like a balance in the multitudinous threads you start.

i'm pretty simple really Deck. kill the bad guys, leave the rest of us alone. the democratic party supports neither, and demonizes those who do, in highly personal terms. i see no problem with pointing that out.

and i have been critical of republicans, on spending, on gay rights. since i know many, it's easy for me to not indulge in the ridiculous mis-characterizations that your party, and those who support them here, so often do.

[basso]

Well, he's a serial liar on this board so one more lie should come as no surprise.

we're having a civil conversation- your presence here is not required.

[Mulder]

I won't tell a doctor how to treat sick people and they shouldn't tell me how to assist my clients with the law.

The only MD that could tell me how to be a lawyer would be one that also has JD behind his name.

[basso]

I won't tell a doctor how to treat sick people and they shouldn't tell me how to assist my clients with the law.

The only MD that could tell me how to be a lawyer would be one that also has JD behind his name.

and yet, there's a mess o lawyers currently crafting legislation that would tell MDs how to practice medicine. yo can understand why they might be resistant.

[Rocket River]

ask 10 doctors, i wager 9 will tell you fees will be regulated, and their income (Pay) is certainly affected by the rates they can charge.

I bet they will take it. . . . if someone would regulate how much the medical Insurance Companies are fleecing them . . .

Rocket River

[pgabriel]

and yet, there's a mess o lawyers currently crafting legislation that would tell MDs how to practice medicine. yo can understand why they might be resistant.


no one's telling doctor's how to practice medicine. I like how the you project from insurance reform to washington telling doctors how to practice medicine

[Deckard]

i'm pretty simple really Deck. kill the bad guys, leave the rest of us alone. the democratic party supports neither, and demonizes those who do, in highly personal terms. i see no problem with pointing that out.

and i have been critical of republicans, on spending, on gay rights. since i know many, it's easy for me to not indulge in the ridiculous mis-characterizations that your party, and those who support them here, so often do.
That's simply not true, not in the "blanket" way you describe. Many, many Democrats support the Afghan War. I support it and I'm a Democrat. Am I happy with how things are going or that we have to be there? No, of course not. It would be highly hypocritical, however, for me to post for several years here about how much I was against Bush invading Iraq, that I supported and have always supported the Afghan War, that it was one of the few things Bush did right, pre-Iraq invasion, and how the invasion of Iraq was a disaster for the war in Afghanistan and its reconstruction, and then several months after President Obama takes office, turn around and declare that we should pull out. We shouldn't, at least not right now. I want to kill the Bad Guys, badly. You are creating an alternate reality to suit your agenda, or something to that effect.

[basso]

That's simply not true, not in the "blanket" way you describe. Many, many Democrats support the Afghan War. I support it and I'm a Democrat. Am I happy with how things are going or that we have to be there? No, of course not. It would be highly hypocritical, however, for me to post for several years here about how much I was against Bush invading Iraq, that I supported and have always supported the Afghan War, that it was one of the few things Bush did right, pre-Iraq invasion, and how the invasion of Iraq was a disaster for the war in Afghanistan and its reconstruction, and then several months after President Obama takes office, turn around and declare that we should pull out. We shouldn't, at least not right now. I want to kill the Bad Guys, badly. You are creating an alternate reality to suit your agenda, or something to that effect.

beyond killing bad guys and leaving the rest of us alone, what would you say is my agenda? not being flip here, i'm honestly curious what you think I think, and why it seems there's such a disconnect with what you think?

[Refman]

are doctor fees regulated by medicare?
The amount that the doctor is compensated through Medicare is according to a schedule of charges. My ex wife's father is a neurologist. He always was concerned that the Medicare payouts consistently got smaller and smaller.

The insurance companies would see that and adjust their schedule downward as well. There is a reason that you seldom spend more than 5 minutes with your doctor. They have to make their living on volume.

[FranchiseBlade]

again, ask any doctor whether the cost of malpractice insurance contributes to the cost of health care. then ask whether the cost of malpractice insurance is related to frivolous law suits. then ask whether unnecessary tests, which cost money, are often ordered due to concerns about a potential lawsuit.
then look at the places where Tort reform has been enacted and see that in absolutely ZERO of those places has it lowered the cost of health care.

[FranchiseBlade]

We've got tort reform in Texas, yet our insurance keeps going up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and upIt isn't just Texas. It's every single place tort reform has been enacted.

Please note that since this fact is inconvenient for basso's premise, he will not address it at all. He just ignores facts that interfere with his vision which he substitutes for reality.

[Mr. Clutch]

then look at the places where Tort reform has been enacted and see that in absolutely ZERO of those places has it lowered the cost of health care.

Obviously, the question is if it is lower relative to if tort reform was never enacted.

[Refman]

then look at the places where Tort reform has been enacted and see that in absolutely ZERO of those places has it lowered the cost of health care.
Tort reform has merely increased the profit margin of med mal insurance carriers.

[FranchiseBlade]

Tort reform has merely increased the profit margin of med mal insurance carriers.
exactly. That's why I'm tired of it being mentioned as a part of health care reform.

I agree that doctors pay too much in mal practice insurance, and that there are some law suits that are frivolous. Too bad that tort reform won't change that, and won't lower the cost of insurance or health care.

[aghast]

again, ask any doctor whether the cost of malpractice insurance contributes to the cost of health care. then ask whether the cost of malpractice insurance is related to frivolous law suits. then ask whether unnecessary tests, which cost money, are often ordered due to concerns about a potential lawsuit.

Basso, you, once more, post a hyperbolic yet fact-free opinion piece. It appeals to authority to discuss the issue (the author is a doctor!), yet predictably because of its satiric-yet-unfunny tonne does not even attempt to argue the case that tort reform would bring any kind of significant savings to the doctor or patient. Please learn to copy/paste from resources that actually know of what they speak.

Due to our flawed medical system, lawsuits are the last recourse for people who are seriously injured by medical malpractice. Eliminating that last option for recompense would only minimally decrease overall medical costs, but allow negligent doctors to continue to practice without fear of consequences.

When my doctor removes my appendix, I don't want him in a hurry to make tee time; I want him to concentrate on the incision. If the fear of lawsuit for malpractice is the main/only factor that helps to sharpen his mind in such instances, then so be it. And if I am irrevocably harmed by such routine surgery, then yes, I want to be able to sue for my pound of flesh.

Key sentences:
That puts litigation costs and malpractice insurance at 1 to 1.5 percent of total medical costs. That’s a rounding error.

NY Times: "Would Tort Reform Lower Costs?" (http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/would-tort-reform-lower-health-care-costs/?pagemode=print):
August 31, 2009, 3:45 pm
Would Tort Reform Lower Costs?
By Anne Underwood

Medical tort reform is moving to the fore of the health care debate. On Sunday in The New York Times, former Senator Bill Bradley, Democrat of New Jersey, argued that one way to gain support of both Democrats and Republicans might be to combine universal coverage with tort reform. Mr. Bradley also suggested that medical courts with special judges could be established, similar to bankruptcy or admiralty courts.

On “This Week With George Stephanopoulos,” Senators Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, and John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, seemed to agree that medical malpractice lawsuits are driving up health care costs and should be limited in some way. “We’ve got to find some way of getting rid of the frivolous cases, and most of them are,” Mr. Hatch said. “And that’s doable, most definitely,” Mr. Kerry replied.

But some academics who study the system are less certain. One critic is Tom Baker, a professor of law and health sciences at the University of Pennsylvania School of Law and author of “The Medical Malpractice Myth,” who believes that making the legal system less receptive to medical malpractice lawsuits will not significantly affect the costs of medical care. He spoke with the freelance writer Anne Underwood.

Q. A lot of people seem to have taken up the cause of tort reform. Why isn’t it included in the health care legislation pending on Capitol Hill?
A. Because it’s a red herring. It’s become a talking point for those who want to obstruct change. But [tort reform] doesn’t accomplish the goal of bringing down costs.

Q. Why not?
A. As the cost of health care goes up, the medical liability component of it has stayed fairly constant. That means it’s part of the medical price inflation system, but it’s not driving it. The number of claims is small relative to actual cases of medical malpractice.

Q. But critics of the current system say that 10 to 15 percent of medical costs are due to medical malpractice.
A. That’s wildly exaggerated. According to the actuarial consulting firm Towers Perrin, medical malpractice tort costs were $30.4 billion in 2007, the last year for which data are available. We have a more than a $2 trillion health care system. That puts litigation costs and malpractice insurance at 1 to 1.5 percent of total medical costs. That’s a rounding error. Liability isn’t even the tail on the cost dog. It’s the hair on the end of the tail.

Q. You said the number of claims is relatively small. Is there a way to demonstrate that?
A. We have approximately the same number of claims today as in the late 1980s. Think about that. The cost of health care has doubled since then. The number of medical encounters between doctors and patients has gone up — and research shows a more or less constant rate of errors per hospitalizations. That means we have a declining rate of lawsuits relative to numbers of injuries.

Q. Do you have numbers on injuries and claims?
A. The best data on medical errors come from three major epidemiological studies on medical malpractice in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. Each found about one serious injury per 100 hospitalizations. There hasn’t been an epidemiological study since then, because people were really persuaded by the data and it’s also very expensive to do a study of that sort. These data were the basis of the 1999 report from the Institute of Medicine, “To Err Is Human.”

Q. And what percent of victims make claims?
A. Those same studies looked at the rate of claims and found that only 4 to 7 percent of those injured brought a case. That’s a small percentage. And because the actual number of injuries has gone up since those studies were done — while claims have remained steady — the rate of claims is actually going down.

Q. So the idea that there are lots of frivolous lawsuits is . . .
A. Ludicrous.

Q. In those cases that are brought, are jury awards excessive?
A. There are already caps on awards in many states. These tend to be on non-economic damages — not medical expenses or lost wages, but typically on pain and suffering. The first was in California in the 1970s. There is pretty good research on that, showing it reduced medical liability payments. These caps vary from state to state, but they’re generally set around $250,000 to $500,000.

Q. Many people would think that a quarter-million to a half-million dollars is a lot of money for pain and suffering.
A. When California adopted its cap in the mid-1970s, it set it at $250,000. That doesn’t mean everyone got that much. It was the maximum. But that was considered a fair amount at the time. Since then, think how much inflation has eaten into that. These caps typically don’t index for inflation.

Q. So a patient can get reimbursed for medical costs, but they’re limited for pain and suffering.
A. They get reimbursement of medical costs in principle. But in fact, they don’t, because the lawyer has to be paid. These cases can cost $100,000 to $150,000 to bring, so the patient has to deduct that amount from any award.

Q. Why are these cases so expensive?
A. You need expert witnesses who must be compensated for their time, which is valuable. You need depositions, which are expensive. You have to hire investigators. You have to pay your junior staff. It’s not worth bringing a suit if the potential award is less.

Imagine you go to the emergency room with appendicitis. For whatever reason, they fail to diagnose it. Your appendix bursts, and you spend a couple weeks in the hospital. I’ve had lawyers tell me they would not take a case like that, even if it’s a slam-dunk. The damages wouldn’t be enough — medical expenses, maybe a month of lost salary, although the patient might have short-term disability insurance that would cover a large part of that. It’s not enough to justify going to court.

Q. So you’re saying that a case has to be serious to be worth trying.
A. The medical malpractice system only works for serious injuries. What it doesn’t work for is more moderate ones. Lawyers discourage people from bringing suits if their injuries are not serious in monetary terms — a poor person or an older person who can’t claim a lot in lost wages. That’s why obstetrician-gynecologists pay such high premiums. If you injure a baby, you’re talking about a lifetime-care injury. Gerontologists’ premiums are exceedingly low.

That’s the reason I say if people are serious about tort reform, they should improve compensation for moderate injuries. Nobody likes that idea, by the way. They say it would make the system more expensive, not less expensive. More people would bring claims. That says to me that the critics are not serious about tort reform.

Q. But it’s not just the cost of premiums and litigation. What about the charge that it causes doctors to practice “defensive medicine,” ordering tests that are expensive and unnecessary?
A. A 1996 study in Florida found defensive medicine costs could be as high as 5 to 7 percent. But when the same authors went back a few years later, they found that managed care had brought it down to 2.5 to 3.5 percent of the total. No one has a good handle on defensive medicine costs. Liability is supposed to change behavior, so some defensive medicine is good. Undoubtedly some of it may be unnecessary, but we don’t have a good way to separate the two.

Q. Tell me more about the 1996 study.
A. It was published in The Quarterly Journal of Economics by Stanford economist Daniel Kessler and Dr. Mark McClellan, who was head of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services under President George W. Bush. For two types of heart disease — heart attacks and ischemic heart disease — the authors found that 5 to 7 percent of the additional costs in Florida, compared to other states with lower medical malpractice liability, could be attributed to defensive medicine. This was based on 1980s data.

Using that estimate, some politicians used to say that medical malpractice cost the system $50 billion a year. But you can’t blindly say that all diseases are the same as heart disease, and if you want a nationwide estimate, you can’t say every state is the same as Florida. Furthermore, the second study, published in 2002 in The Journal of Public Economics, found that much of the difference disappeared as managed care took hold in Florida in the 1990s.

Q. But many doctors complain about having to practice defensive medicine.
A. Doctors will say that. But when you dig down, you find that what’s really happening is that doctors tend to do what other doctors around them do. They go along with the prevailing standard of care in their region — which in many cases isn’t even a state, but a city or county.

Q. If medical malpractice doesn’t explain the high costs of our health-care system, what does?
A. A variety of things. The American population is aging. We’ve had advances in technology that are expensive. We’re also a rich nation, and the richer you get, the more money you spend on health care. And compared to other countries, we have heavy administrative costs from the private-insurance system.

Q. If it’s not true that medical malpractice is driving the high cost of medical care in this country, why won’t the argument go away?
A. It makes sense to people intuitively — in part, because they’ve been told it so often. And it’s a convenient argument for those who want to derail the process. Maybe it’s a deep political game. Maybe they’re raising it to say, we’ll back off tort reform if you back off the public option.

Q. What about former Senator Bill Bradley’s idea that medical courts with special judges should be established?
A. Mr. Bradley has been backing tort reform for as long as I can remember, so this is hardly a compromise for him. I’m not saying medical courts would be a bad idea, as long as they’re not set up in a way that insulates medical providers from responsibility. That’s a big caveat.

Q. What about Senator John Kerry’s assertion that it’s “doable” to rid the system of frivolous lawsuits?
A. I guess it’s doable because there aren’t very many frivolous suits.

[MadMax]

an end to venue shopping is a good start, caps on damages.

those exist in texas. i haven't seen my premiums go down one bit.

[Rocketman95]

those exist in texas. i haven't seen my premiums go down one bit.

in basso's world, proof it doesn't work isn't proof it doesn't work.

[SamFisher]

i deal w/ atty's every day. in this case, i happen to have some personal insight into how the medical profession views the legal profession.

Gettin donkeyraped on this BBS whenever you try to post about legal topics and then fail miserably probably doesn't count as you "dealing with attorneys every day"

[Refman]

an end to venue shopping is a good start, caps on damages.

The problem is that with the passage of Proposition 12 in Texas in 2005, we have a hard cap on damages of $250,000. That has not reduced premiums (as Perry promised it would). Since it brings costs down and premiums have still risen, looks like the insurers are reaping the benefits.

All of this ignores that prior to Prop 12, we actually had a cap on damages in the Civil Practices and Remedies Code. Punitive damages are capped in all civil suits to 4 times economic damages (there is an exception for knowing violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act).

In short, damage caps have done nothing to slow down the rate of suit, have not reduced insurance rates and have filled the pockets of those providing med mal insurance.

Tort reform has been an epic fail of the highest magnitude.

[Batman Jones]

Gettin donkeyraped on this BBS whenever you try to post about legal topics and then fail miserably probably doesn't count as you "dealing with attorneys every day"

He really does get donkeyraped a lot.

[Major]

Obviously, the question is if it is lower relative to if tort reform was never enacted.

The rate of growth in health care costs is no lower in states with tort reform than states without. In fact, Texas has had some of the highest rate increases in the nation over that period. So unless there's some reason that it should have been even higher in those states, I think the question has been pretty well answered.

[basso]

He really does get donkeyraped a lot.

as i mentioned earlier, this is an adult conversation- please return to the kiddie table.

[Refman]

as i mentioned earlier, this is an adult conversation- please return to the kiddie table.
You do come in here and get thrashed quite a bit.

Please do not act as though you have a monopoly on maturity in this forum. You post blog fodder and op ed pieces as fact with no analysis and a misleading thread title. You are fairly immature in your own right.

[basso]

You do come in here and get thrashed quite a bit.

Please do not act as though you have a monopoly on maturity in this forum. You post blog fodder and op ed pieces as fact with no analysis and a misleading thread title. You are fairly immature in your own right.

i'm not sure what getting thrashed on proves about the thrashee- seems to me it says much more about those doing the thrashing.

[FranchiseBlade]

i'm not sure what getting thrashed on proves about the thrashee- seems to me it says much more about those doing the thrashing.
It means that the thrashee didn't have quality material or sound arguments to back up anything they put forward.

It does also say a lot about those doing the thrashing. It says that they will put forward solid evidence to match your lack of solid evidence.

Please note that you have yet to respond to the evidence that shows that tort reform has not lowered the cost of health care.

Let the rest of us know when you are ready to engage in real substantive debate and discussion.

[Batman Jones]

You do come in here and get thrashed quite a bit.

Please do not act as though you have a monopoly on maturity in this forum. You post blog fodder and op ed pieces as fact with no analysis and a misleading thread title. You are fairly immature in your own right.

He also plagiarizes and lies quite a lot. My favorite recent one was when he repeatedly accused me of repeatedly trashing Downs Syndrome babies. When rimbaud provided extensive history proving that this never happened (not just not repeatedly, but never), he just kept repeating that it did.

He's a fart of a joke.

[basso]

He also plagiarizes and lies quite a lot. My favorite recent one was when he repeatedly accused me of repeatedly trashing Downs Syndrome babies. When rimbaud provided extensive history proving that this never happened (not just not repeatedly, but never), he just kept repeating that it did.

He's a fart of a joke.

again with the personal attacks- i assume you, and most "liberals" use the tactic to obscure your lack of actual argument.

and you've made your disdain for those with special needs, including children with DS, quite clear over the past year.

[Franchise2001]

again with the personal attacks- i assume you, and most "liberals" use the tactic to obscure your lack of actual argument.


Basso is getting BaylorBear09ed in here:
http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/5724/tadae.jpg

[Refman]

again with the personal attacks- i assume you, and most "liberals" use the tactic to obscure your lack of actual argument.
You use partisan blogs and op ed pieces not based or supported by facts and unnecessary hyperbole to make up for your lack of argument.

You consistently refuse to make any effort to refute documentation which attempts to disprove your argument. You resort to ridicule virtually immediately.

Next.

[Major]

again with the personal attacks. i assume you ... use the tactic to obscure your lack of actual argument.

You mean, like this?

and you've made your disdain for those with special needs, including children with DS, quite clear over the past year.

[Refman]

You mean, like this?
http://dennisjudd.com/albums/funpics/fry.sized.jpg

[Batman Jones]

again with the personal attacks- i assume you, and most "liberals" use the tactic to obscure your lack of actual argument.

and you've made your disdain for those with special needs, including children with DS, quite clear over the past year.

As Major pointed out, this speaks for itself. And rimbaud proved it false some time back with no reply at all from you. I have also told you I have a special needs brother, so **** you for repeating this BS. You're a liar and a scumbag.

[Refman]

As Major pointed out, this speaks for itself. And rimbaud proved it false some time back with no reply at all from you. I have also told you I have a special needs brother, so **** you for repeating this BS. You're a liar and a scumbag.
I think you just offended liars and scumbags everywhere. :D

[subtomic]

The amount that the doctor is compensated through Medicare is according to a schedule of charges. My ex wife's father is a neurologist. He always was concerned that the Medicare payouts consistently got smaller and smaller.

The insurance companies would see that and adjust their schedule downward as well. There is a reason that you seldom spend more than 5 minutes with your doctor. They have to make their living on volume.

According to this article, the pricing schedule is largely the fault of Medicare following the recommendations of the AMA for setting "relative values" for medical procedures. So the doctors (or rather, their PAC) are somewhat responsible for this themselves.

The Fix is In: The hidden public-private cartel that sets health care prices (http://www.slate.com/id/2227082/)

[basso]

As Major pointed out, this speaks for itself. And rimbaud proved it false some time back with no reply at all from you. I have also told you I have a special needs brother, so **** you for repeating this BS. You're a liar and a scumbag.

bats, this thread proceeded quite nicely w/o you, with a fairly civil discussion on the merits of tort reform, and then you came along spewing the hate you always spew. i'm sure you love your brother, but you show shocking disdain for others with specials needs, who have no connection to you, yet who deserve no less respect and understanding, as do their families, all of who make difficult decisions (as you surely must know from personal experience), and live with the joys (and stresses) every single day.

you should be ashamed of yourself.

i've reported your post- Good day to you (and the rest of you).

[Batman Jones]

you show shocking disdain for others with specials needs

Bull ****. And you know it. You have never shown a single instance of me doing that, you have only continued to say it. Your fake ass offense is on behalf of a freaking politician's kid, whom I'm pretty sure I didn't even mention until after your false allegations started. My sensitivity is due to a family member. So **** you again.

Report away, troll.

[Refman]

bats, this thread proceeded quite nicely w/o you, with a fairly civil discussion on the merits of tort reform
The only one that has a problem with Batman being here is you. The rest of us can debate with him rationally.

then you came along spewing the hate you always spew
Really? Where? Did I miss it?

i'm sure you love your brother, but you show shocking disdain for others with specials needs, who have no connection to you, yet who deserve no less respect and understanding, as do their families, all of who make difficult decisions (as you surely must know from personal experience), and live with the joys (and stresses) every single day.
This is really uncalled for. You need to provide one...just ONE example of anything he has said that indicates that he has disdain for special needs children. I cannot recall any. He has disdain for people that use their special needs children for a photo op for political gain. That is FAR from having disdain for a special needs child.

i've reported your post
As I have reported yours.

Good day to you (and the rest of you).
Good bye...ciao...adios and aloha.

[FranchiseBlade]

This thread has been added to the list of threads where people present evidence backed arguments to basso and he runs away.

basso any substance on the values or lack there of regarding tort reform came from other people in the thread, and none from you.

here is the list which is admittedly only partial. It includes the post from the thread that shows you have yet to provide one example of batman making fun of special needs children.

http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=4741079&postcount=41

http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost....52&postcount=91

http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost....69&postcount=12

http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost....86&postcount=26

http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost....90&postcount=27

http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost....94&postcount=28

http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost....69&postcount=37

http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost....13&postcount=88

http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost....12&postcount=89

The first url does work. The rest can be linked to from here.
http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=4667574&postcount=34

[aghast]

...ere is the list which is admittedly only partial. It includes the post from the thread that shows you have yet to provide one example of batman making fun of special needs children....

The urls in your links are broken (missing middle ".php?p=..."s), but really, the 404s are about as informative as the intended posts. No real need to fix them. I'm pretty sure everyone understands the point.

[FranchiseBlade]

The urls in your links are broken (missing middle ".php?p=..."s), but really, the 404s are about as informative as the intended posts. No real need to fix them. I'm pretty sure everyone understands the point.
oh that's right thanks.

I will fix that now.

[rocketsjudoka]

Obviously, the question is if it is lower relative to if tort reform was never enacted.

If Texas with tort reform isn't seeing its health care prices lowered compared to states with similar demographics without tort reform I would say that is fairly compelling evidence that tort reform hasn't lowered prices.

[Refman]

If Texas with tort reform isn't seeing its health care prices lowered compared to states with similar demographics without tort reform I would say that is fairly compelling evidence that tort reform wasn't enacted.
Wrong. Tort reform was enacted. Ask any med mal defense attorney that is worried about their job because very few people can find a lawyer to take their case even if it is meritorious. The fees generated by a settlement no longer justify the time expenditure required to obtain the settlement.

Besides, the provisions of Prop 12 are on the books and enforced. Can you provide evidence that Prop 12 was passed and not enacted?

[FranchiseBlade]

If Texas with tort reform isn't seeing its health care prices lowered compared to states with similar demographics without tort reform I would say that is fairly compelling evidence that tort reform wasn't enacted.
Tort reform has been enacted in a number of places, and hasn't worked in any of them at lowering health care prices.

[rocketsjudoka]

Wrong. Tort reform was enacted. Ask any med mal defense attorney that is worried about their job because very few people can find a lawyer to take their case even if it is meritorious. The fees generated by a settlement no longer justify the time expenditure required to obtain the settlement.

Besides, the provisions of Prop 12 are on the books and enforced. Can you provide evidence that Prop 12 was passed and not enacted?

Lousy dyslexia. I meant 'evidence that tort reform hasn't lowered prices.'

[Refman]

Lousy dyslexia. I meant 'evidence that tort reform hasn't lowered prices.'
Oh...sorry about that. I agree. The beneficiary of tort reform (more accurately tort deform) is the insurance industry.

[MadMax]

Oh...sorry about that. I agree. The beneficiary of tort reform (more accurately tort deform) is the insurance industry.

I went to a CLE right after tort reform was passed through the legislature. I wish I still had those materials from that seminar, because the speaker showed how the insurance industry KNEW that litigation was a tiny, tiny part of your health insurance bill...and how they knew it wouldn't drive down costs...but they sold it that way, and people bought it hook, line and sinker.

I can't imagine anyone in Texas arguing FOR tort reform in the wake of all that....unless they just had no clue about it at all.

[Jeff]

Batman Jones flies off the handle more than he should. He gets emotionally involved in things that probably aren't worth getting worked up about. However, I consider what basso and Trader Jorge do to be 100 times worse.

They goad people into getting angry by saying some of the most ridiculous and idiotic things imaginable. When people confront them about it they cry wolf and say, "That's not what I meant!" or "I didn't do anything wrong."

These are the guys who start a fight in a football game but then point out the guy who retaliates to the ref so that guy gets flagged. They are the guys in a bar who mess with some guy until he snaps and takes a swing at them only for them to scream for the bouncers who toss the guy on the street.

In the case of the BBS, they poke and they prod and they subtly insult - digging into some really ugly places to do it like including stabbing open wounds the know are sensitive to the other person - and then when the person loses it, they go crying to the moderator as per usual.

I, personally, will not punish someone for letting his emotions get the best of him in a situation where shutting off the computer is probably the wiser thing to do.

Conversely, I will not reward sniveling whiners who can't take the heat when they are the one's that turned on the oven.

[DonnyMost]

I, personally, will not punish someone for letting his emotions get the best of him in a situation where shutting off the computer is probably the wiser thing to do.

Conversely, I will not reward sniveling whiners who can't take the heat when they are the one's that turned on the oven.

http://brokenshoestring.com/images/orson%20clapping.gif

[Franchise2001]

Is this where Basso disappears?

[Refman]

Is this where Basso disappears?
It appears so. Not surprising. It is right on time.

[Batman Jones]

Batman Jones flies off the handle more than he should. He gets emotionally involved in things that probably aren't worth getting worked up about.

True. Apologies.

[Refman]

True. Apologies.
Of course that statement also applies to at least half of us.

[Batman Jones]

Of course that statement also applies to at least half of us.

You're too kind. I'm sure I'm the worst offender in that way. I will try to do better.

[FranchiseBlade]

you should be ashamed of yourself.

i've reported your post- Good day to you (and the rest of you).
Let's all look and decide who the real little baby is.
exchange summary:

In my opinion this is sniveling cowardice at it's finest.

basso accuses batman of something that he has been shown to not be guilty of, and basso never shows evidence to back up his accusation, and does nothing to counter the evidence to the contrary.

batman slams basso for making the same false accusation. Rather than finally show one piece of evidence that shows batman made fun of special needs children basso turns tattle tell and runs away.

Grow a pair and handle your own problems, son.

[FranchiseBlade]

Of course that statement also applies to at least half of us.
Ref, if there wasn't a requirement to spread enough rep, before giving you more, you'd have a million points. I try and rep almost every post you make.

[Refman]

Ref, if there wasn't a requirement to spread enough rep, before giving you more, you'd have a million points. I try and rep almost every post you make.
Wow...that is really a compliment. I appreciate it. I enjoy your posts as well.

At this point, the only thing I can say is that we need to turn off the requirement of having to spread rep around before repping the same poster twice. :D

[basso]

Batman Jones flies off the handle more than he should. He gets emotionally involved in things that probably aren't worth getting worked up about. However, I consider what basso and Trader Jorge do to be 100 times worse.

They goad people into getting angry by saying some of the most ridiculous and idiotic things imaginable. When people confront them about it they cry wolf and say, "That's not what I meant!" or "I didn't do anything wrong."

These are the guys who start a fight in a football game but then point out the guy who retaliates to the ref so that guy gets flagged. They are the guys in a bar who mess with some guy until he snaps and takes a swing at them only for them to scream for the bouncers who toss the guy on the street.

In the case of the BBS, they poke and they prod and they subtly insult - digging into some really ugly places to do it like including stabbing open wounds the know are sensitive to the other person - and then when the person loses it, they go crying to the moderator as per usual.

I, personally, will not punish someone for letting his emotions get the best of him in a situation where shutting off the computer is probably the wiser thing to do.

Conversely, I will not reward sniveling whiners who can't take the heat when they are the one's that turned on the oven.

this post amuses me greatly, the first recorded example of what shall henceforth be known and the "**** You!!! Double Standard." let us recap, shall we? i post an amusing article that sparks a modestly substantive, and completely civil, discussion on one aspect of health care reform. Below are Batman's posts leading up to the first of his "**** You's":
Jesus, dude! Do you think you have to start a new thread every time you read something? If you're not banned for your trolling or your continual use of political signatures, you should be banned for bandwidth violations...

...A wager from you is worth less than zero. Every time you're proven wrong (which is literally every time), you go poof...

...If you can guess how many fingers I'm holding up I will make the Eiffel Tower disappear. If not, you will admit you are a frustrated loser and leave us the hell alone. Ready? OKAY!...

...he's a serial liar on this board so one more lie should come as no surprise...

...He really does get donkeyraped a lot.

My "goading?"

we're having a civil conversation- your presence here is not required...

...as i mentioned earlier, this is an adult conversation- please return to the kiddie table.

now we move into **** You prime time, with this illuminating observation, note the complete lack of "prodding and subtle insults" on Batman's part
He also plagiarizes and lies quite a lot. My favorite recent one was when he repeatedly accused me of repeatedly trashing Downs Syndrome babies. When rimbaud provided extensive history proving that this never happened (not just not repeatedly, but never), he just kept repeating that it did.

He's a fart of a joke.

and me, digging into "some really ugly places:"
again with the personal attacks- i assume you, and most "liberals" use the tactic to obscure your lack of actual argument.

and you've made your disdain for those with special needs, including children with DS, quite clear over the past year.

that's it, and you can follow the rest from post 77. (http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=174079&page=4&pp=20) the result? Batman gets mildly admonished, in the most understanding of fashions, for "flying off the handle," and i'm chastised for pointing out what any unbiased reader can see is nothing but a string of provocations throughout the entire thread.

Let us compare and contrast with an earlier thread, from about a year ago: (http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=153247&page=18&pp=20&highlight=convention)


So it is OK to bring up certain kids, huh?...
...omg we don't ****ing care about your kids...
...You have five kids?? We didn't know...
...Really pimping the kids.....
...america's bitch...doesnt she look like one?

to which i replied:
**** you.
and was summarily banned for over a month:

"Posting “**** you” will do it every time."

or so i was told.

now however, we see that is not the case. Liberals can serially harass conservatives, in the most vulgar of language, and nothing will happen. Those of us who don't vote democratic have long suspected that there's a liberal bias on this board- we just never expected to see it so blatantly acknowledged.

[rocketsjudoka]

Is it me or has the collective maturity of the D&D dropped again?

[gifford1967]

you've made your disdain for those with special needs, including children with DS, quite clear over the past year..

It's been pointed out multiple times before, but I'll do it again anyway. The comment above is both a lie and an insult that is more offensive than a thousand "**** yous" and "assholes".

[SamFisher]

now however, we see that is not the case. Liberals can serially harass conservatives, in the most vulgar of language, and nothing will happen. Those of us who don't vote democratic have long suspected that there's a liberal bias on this board- we just never expected to see it so blatantly acknowledged

This whiny rant is another deliciously embarrassing moment in your posting career, which as we know, you take very srsly.

Are you going to take your smoking gun evidence of liberal bias to the International Court of Basketball BBS Political Sub-Forum Neutrality (the ICBBBSPSFN, for short..)? You really should. It's your duty!

[Franchise2001]

now however, we see that is not the case. Liberals can serially harass conservatives, in the most vulgar of language, and nothing will happen. Those of us who don't vote democratic have long suspected that there's a liberal bias on this board- we just never expected to see it so blatantly acknowledged.

Your entire post is a joke. All of your threads are a joke. You come in here and expect people to take you seriously when all you do is copy/paste some articles that fit your agenda and then complain when people snap back at you?

As to your response to Jeff along with your references to what Batman said, you try to plead innocent by only referring to this thread. I have seen you accuse him of making fun of special needs children, etc on many occasions.

As far as this board having a liberal bias... Where are the "liberal" threads that rival yours?

Let's look at your last 10 threads:
1. Socialized Legal System
2. Van Jones: Channeling his Inner Batman (personal stab at BJ)
3. Dems on Gay Rights... (Dems not living up to promises)
4. Schilling for the "Kennedy" Seat
5. Astroturf Now (Holder to Appoint Prosecutor to Investigate CIA Terror Interrogations.)
6. Heard any new Chappaquiddick jokes? (Stab at Kennedy after he died)
7. Save our Foreskins
8. Rathergate bombshell: W volunteered to go to Vietnam (Still defending the old administration)
9. Obama: Capps and Charades
10. Pimping Grandma (stab at Obama's deceased grandmother)

Sifting through the past 4 pages (the span of your last 10 threads) lets find some "liberal" material...

1. Pastor: Hope Obama Dies (calling out the crazies)
2. Parents don't want kids to listen to Obama's Speech (calling out the crazies... Baylorbear09 obliges)
3. Bill Moyers speaks truth to power
4. US sees profit from TARP
5. Kyl: I don't think a single republican will support Health Care
6. Bush et. al.'s Legal Guidance on Acceptable Torture
7. GOP looking for great white hope
8. Krugman: Does Obama have the balls to take on right wingers

Forgive me if I'm wrong here, but, by yourself, you have more "conservative leaning threads" than everybody combined on the liberal spectrum. You also have, while it may be funny to yourself, worded your threads in a way that may offend some. The only person that might even rival you on the other side is glynch.

For the most part, the D&D consists of your conservative, anti-Obama, anti-Dem spam where you post any blog/op-ed/video you can find that you agree with.

I honestly think that a good majority of people that argue with you on here are not as liberal as you might think. In fact, they are fed up with your polarized views to the point of where they post Walrus pictures, etc. instead of even arguing back because it's a waste of time. You are going to continue your crap threads and we're going to continue calling you out...

YOU LOSE... good day sir.

[ROXRAN]

Don't get all worked up Franchise2001. That is a lot of effort there. Purely demonstrative of hate, disvision, and intolerance...Van Jones would be proud. Just call him an ***hole and save yourself a lot of trouble...

WWVJD?

[Franchise2001]

Don't get all worked up Franchise2001. That is a lot of effort there. Purely demonstrative of hate, disvision, and intolerance...Van Jones would be proud. Just call him an ***hole and save yourself a lot of trouble...

WWVJD?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_bGzp8wu256A/R7rseue8jVI/AAAAAAAAAJU/B2yaj2VOhHg/s400/Obama-Surf.jpg

He's coming for your guns too!!!

[Franchise2001]

Let me add ROXRAN... There is a lot of sarcasm in my posts towards you, with my knowledge of your support of gun rights, etc...

I do think that VJ was wayyyy too extreme in his past and out of line with his comments. Resigning was the correct move and I'm glad he will be out of the spotlight.

However, he is not "one of the enemy" as you say. None of us are enemies. I might be pro-choice, pro-gay marriage along with some socially liberal views, but I know the large majority of us are flexible when it comes to putting together policies that work to getting our country back on track.

[Batman Jones]

gifford67 got it right.

"**** you" is mild compared to repeated lies about me wanting babies to die, wanting American soldiers to die and hating special needs kids.

You are a serial liar/slanderer and a dick, basso. And, apart from other trolls like Trader George, there isn't a single person here who disagrees. Are you addicted to negative attention or what?

[Invisible Fan]

basso, thou dost protest too much.

[basso]

gifford67 got it right.

"**** you" is mild compared to repeated lies about me wanting babies to die, wanting American soldiers to die and hating special needs kids.

They goad people into getting angry by saying some of the most ridiculous and idiotic things imaginable. When people confront them about it they cry wolf and say, "That's not what I meant!" or "I didn't do anything wrong."

You are a serial liar/slanderer and a dick, basso. And, apart from other trolls like Trader George, there isn't a single person here who disagrees. Are you addicted to negative attention or what?

they poke and they prod and they subtly insult - digging into some really ugly places to do it like including stabbing open wounds the know are sensitive to the other person

i think you've answered the question.

[ROXRAN]

Let me add ROXRAN... There is a lot of sarcasm in my posts towards you, with my knowledge of your support of gun rights, etc...

I do think that VJ was wayyyy too extreme in his past and out of line with his comments. Resigning was the correct move and I'm glad he will be out of the spotlight.

However, he is not "one of the enemy" as you say. None of us are enemies. I might be pro-choice, pro-gay marriage along with some socially liberal views, but I know the large majority of us are flexible when it comes to putting together policies that work to getting our country back on track.

I understand that Franchise2001. we are having fun. no ill-will towards you. I'm not saying people who disagree with me on certain things are 'enemies' because I see good things and bad things on both political sides that I embrace or not...I regret that term. Van Jones is a person and citizen of the U.S. and I respect that, and also agree completely on your stance about him and I respect you for saying this.

I genuinely like President Obama, and I want him to succeed. (Because that will mean the country will benefit)

[Franchise2001]

I understand that Franchise2001. we are having fun. no ill-will towards you. I'm not saying people who disagree with me on certain things are 'enemies' because I see good things and bad things on both political sides that I embrace or not...I regret that term. Van Jones is a person and citizen of the U.S. I respect that, and I agree completely on your stance about him and I respect you for saying this.

I like genuinely like President Obama, and I want him to succeed.

+1 and...

http://people.eku.edu/pedersonn/mongoliaFire/american-flag.gif

[Batman Jones]

i think you've answered the question.

You've never even tried to deny being guilty of what Jeff rightly accused you of.

Show me one link proving that I:

(a) want babies to die
(b) want soldiers to die, or
(c) hate special needs kids.

You can't. Those are lies and they are slanderous lies. And they are worse by far than calling someone a troll or telling them to **** off.

So **** off.

[basso]

You've never even tried to deny being guilty of what Jeff rightly accused you of.

Show me one link proving that I:

(a) want babies to die
(b) want soldiers to die, or
(c) hate special needs kids.

You can't. Those are lies and they are slanderous lies. And they are worse by far than calling someone a troll or telling them to **** off.

So **** off.

you've made countless posts of the "Poor Twig" variety, and wanting Bush to fail in Iraq, as Jeff says, pushing right up to the line, and then screaming indignantly "that's not what i meant."

your intent is quite clear.

[Batman Jones]

I have never said I wanted Bush to fail in Iraq, not once. And I have never said I wanted soldiers or babies to die or anything like it (in fact, I'm as pro-life as I am pro-choice and as pro-soldier as I am anti-war). You've never provided proof of your assertions because it doesn't exist.

I started the "poor Twig" stuff AFTER you started accusing me of hating special needs kids. You know this is true because rimbaud laid it all out for you. Again, you've never even tried to prove your lies about this are true because it's impossible.

I'm done wasting time with you now.

[pgabriel]

I have never said I wanted Bush to fail in Iraq, not once. And I have never said I wanted soldiers or babies to die or anything like it (in fact, I'm as pro-life as I am pro-choice and as pro-soldier as I am anti-war). You've never provided proof of your assertions because it doesn't exist.




but its okay for wingnuts to hope obama fails because they don't believe in his policies

[Batman Jones]

but its okay for wingnuts to hope obama fails because they don't believe in his policies

According to basso their "intent is quite clear." They obviously want everybody to die.

[thumbs]

According to basso their "intent is quite clear." They obviously want everybody to die.
As opposed to wanting everybody to live forever. ;)

[Franchise2001]

you've made countless posts of the "Poor Twig" variety, and wanting Bush to fail in Iraq, as Jeff says, pushing right up to the line, and then screaming indignantly "that's not what i meant."

your intent is quite clear.

Search is awesome. Apparently countless = 2

[FranchiseBlade]

you've made countless posts of the "Poor Twig" variety, and wanting Bush to fail in Iraq, as Jeff says, pushing right up to the line, and then screaming indignantly "that's not what i meant."

your intent is quite clear.
The poor Twig comments were making fun of you, and not of DS children.

[Batman Jones]

Search is awesome. Apparently countless = 2

And both of those two "countless" instances came after I had already been accused of "countless" instances of same (at which point, "countless" equalled zero).

In other words, FranchiseBlade is correct: I was making fun of basso, not of any DS child.

And yet, according to basso, even though I have a special needs brother, I have "made [my] disdain for special needs children clear."

In other words, basso=lying ass.

[basso]

The poor Twig comments were making fun of you, and not of DS children.

ah, he was goading, poking, prodding, as it were?

[FranchiseBlade]

ah, he was goading, poking, prodding, as it were?
It was more along the lines of satire.

[Franchise2001]

ah, he was goading, poking, prodding, as it were?

It seems the poker was getting prodded. A bi-partisan game of tummy sticks... hardly the morals of a true conservative.

[basso]

And both of those two "countless" instances came after I had already been accused of "countless" instances of same (at which point, "countless" equalled zero).

In other words, FranchiseBlade is correct: I was making fun of basso, not of any DS child.

And yet, according to basso, even though I have a special needs brother, I have "made [my] disdain for special needs children clear."

In other words, basso=lying ass.

interesting how you use your brother as a shield against this criticism- in another context one might almost say you're pimping him.

i don't doubt for a second your feelings for him, but your behavior in this regard is curious, hypocritical even.

[Batman Jones]

ah, he was goading, poking, prodding, as it were?

Yes, I was goading the lying asshole that accused me of hating children that suffer from a condition my brother suffers from.

You look like an idiot here, as usual.

Stop posting.

[Batman Jones]

interesting how you use your brother as a shield against this criticism- in another context one might almost say you're pimping him.

i don't doubt for a second your feelings for him, but your behavior in this regard is curious, hypocritical even.

If this doesn't get you banned, I don't know what will. I'm leaving this thread now so as not to tell you to **** off again.

[Franchise2001]

interesting how you use your brother as a shield against this criticism- in another context one might almost say you're pimping him.

i don't doubt for a second your feelings for him, but your behavior in this regard is curious, hypocritical even.

Not cool man. There's a line and you crossed it.

[basso]

Batty at 11:48 AM ET

I'm done wasting time with you now.

Batty at 5:29 PM ET

I'm leaving this thread now so as not to tell you to **** off again.

if you'd just made, and stuck to that pledge, 3 days ago all this could have been avoided.

[basso]

Not cool man. There's a line and you crossed it.

my point exactly.

[Franchise2001]

my point exactly.

I believe Jeff already made your point earlier. You know Batman has a short fuse. He may call you an a-hole, but the mods have decided that you were the instigator and he won't be punished. You then complained about the liberal bias in this forum. You continued to falsely accuse Batman. Then you accused him of pimping his DS brother?

I'll go ahead and use a term my people like to use... you're a putz.

[basso]

I believe Jeff already made your point earlier. You know Batman has a short fuse. He may call you an a-hole, but the mods have decided that you were the instigator and he won't be punished. You then complained about the liberal bias in this forum. You continued to falsely accuse Batman. Then you accused him of pimping his DS brother?

I'll go ahead and use a term my people like to use... you're a putz.

i think you missed my point. i was referring to the constant charge batman and others have made about she-who-must-not-be-seen-coddling-her-DS-kid.

[Franchise2001]

i think you missed my point. i was referring to the constant charge batman and others have made about she-who-must-not-be-seen-coddling-her-DS-kid.

You better make a damn good case that Batman accused Palin of "pimping" trig. From what I remember, it was the right who wrongly accused Obama supporters of making fun of Trig... the left followed those idiotic remarks with sarcastic rebuttals because 1. it was completely false and 2. it wasn't worth arguing about.

You can make a claim, kick and scream, and then run away... but I would put money on the fact that if posters said anything negative towards Palin (or Trig) regarding DS it was meant to be sarcastic.

There's humor, dark humor and then there's crossing the line. There is a big difference between attacking a politician/celebrity (or his/her family), an individual poster, and then a special needs sibling of an individual poster.

I'll go ahead and admit that I have made some jokes about Palin in the past, but they were never personal... we all get caught up in politics and it gets very heated during election times. I've made some jokes that I would never say on this board or around my conservative friends. I know that when I offend somebody, even when it's meant to be a joke or to make a point, I make a point of apologizing... unless I have no plans on being civil.

So the question remains. Do you want to be civil or do you want to be a putz? I have a feeling some of the higher ups on this board might not be too happy if you choose the latter.

[basso]

You better make a damn good case that Batman accused Palin of "pimping" trig. From what I remember, it was the right who wrongly accused Obama supporters of making fun of Trig... the left followed those idiotic remarks with sarcastic rebuttals because 1. it was completely false and 2. it wasn't worth arguing about.

You can make a claim, kick and scream, and then run away... but I would put money on the fact that if posters said anything negative towards Palin (or Trig) regarding DS it was meant to be sarcastic.

There's humor, dark humor and then there's crossing the line. There is a big difference between attacking a politician/celebrity (or his/her family), an individual poster, and then a special needs sibling of an individual poster.

I'll go ahead and admit that I have made some jokes about Palin in the past, but they were never personal... we all get caught up in politics and it gets very heated during election times. I've made some jokes that I would never say on this board or around my conservative friends. I know that when I offend somebody, even when it's meant to be a joke or to make a point, I make a point of apologizing... unless I have no plans on being civil.

So the question remains. Do you want to be civil or do you want to be a putz? I have a feeling some of the higher ups on this board might not be too happy if you choose the latter.

where have a attacked any relative of a poster, much less Batty's brother?

and check the thread i linked above from the RNC if you want to see some of the "jokes" folks made about Palin- and those were just the warm-ups.

[Franchise2001]

Because you keep bringing up the DS topic OVER and OVER again.

From what I gathered from your posts in this thread alone:

Basso: You made fun of Palin and trig! You must really hate special needs children.
Batman: I have a special needs brother.
Basso: Hypocrite. Well then you love your brother but have disdain for all the other special needs children.
Batman: A**hole.
Basso: HELP ME MODS.
Jeff: No.
Basso: Stupid liberals and this biased board is out to get me.
Batman: Because you're an a**hole.
Basso: Well you still hate special needs children. Except for your brother of course.

[vlaurelio]

Basso(with link to pic of Palin with DS child in sig): You made fun of Palin and trig! You must really hate special needs children.
Batman: I have a special needs brother.
Basso(with link to pic of Palin with DS child in sig): Hypocrite. Well then you love your brother but have disdain for all the other special needs children.
Batman: A**hole.
Basso(with link to pic of Palin with DS child in sig): HELP ME MODS.
Jeff: No.
Basso(with link to pic of Palin with DS child in sig): Stupid liberals and this biased board is out to get me.
Batman: Because you're an a**hole.
Basso(with link to pic of Palin with DS child in sig): Well you still hate special needs children. Except for your brother of course.

fixed

[Franchise2001]

fixed

I didn't even see the thread in his sig until now. Goes further to prove the point that 1. he craves negative attention on this board and enjoys being a political troll, 2. he knows how to push Batman's buttons and 3. he blatantly ignores the mods on this board by not abiding to Clutch's sig rules (it might have been different then but you're still linking to the D&D).

[basso]

Because you keep bringing up the DS topic OVER and OVER again.

From what I gathered from your posts in this thread alone:

Basso: You made fun of Palin and trig! You must really hate special needs children.
Batman: I have a special needs brother.
Basso: Hypocrite. Well then you love your brother but have disdain for all the other special needs children.
Batman: A**hole.
Basso: HELP ME MODS.
Jeff: No.
Basso: Stupid liberals and this biased board is out to get me.
Batman: Because you're an a**hole.
Basso: Well you still hate special needs children. Except for your brother of course.

you left out the susbtative debate the preceded it, and my attempts to not engage w/ Batman, but otherwise, pretty close. i suppose one's perception is colored by how one feels about the issue or the poster(s) in question.

and, i might add, whatever Batman took offense to, it's far less than what he dishes out on a (formerly drunken) nightly basis.

[basso]

I didn't even see the thread in his sig until now. Goes further to prove the point that 1. he craves negative attention on this board and enjoys being a political troll, 2. he knows how to push Batman's buttons and 3. he blatantly ignores the mods on this board by not abiding to Clutch's sig rules (it might have been different then but you're still linking to the D&D).

or 4. there's nothing political about a picture of sarah palin holding her child.

[Franchise2001]

and, i might add, whatever Batman took offense to, it's far less than what he dishes out on a (formerly drunken) nightly basis.

http://images.quickblogcast.com/115162-107462/putz.jpg

[vlaurelio]

or 4. there's nothing political about a picture of sarah palin holding her child.

wasn't that picture taken at a political campaign event and many times used for campaign publicity?

[Refman]

interesting how you use your brother as a shield against this criticism- in another context one might almost say you're pimping him.

i don't doubt for a second your feelings for him, but your behavior in this regard is curious, hypocritical even.
Are you really accusing Batman of using his brother for some sort of political points on a basketball BBS?

That is just low, basso. In fact, it does not get any lower.

IMO, that is banworthy all by itself.

[Refman]

Batty at 11:48 AM ET



Batty at 5:29 PM ET



if you'd just made, and stuck to that pledge, 3 days ago all this could have been avoided.
If you would just stop being an insufferable ass and an embarrassment to conservatives everywhere, this could have all been avoided.

[basso]

Are you really accusing Batman of using his brother for some sort of political points on a basketball BBS?

That is just low, basso. In fact, it does not get any lower.

IMO, that is banworthy all by itself.

in fact, i'm doing the reverse- i'm saying there's no difference between Batman's regard for, and pride in, his brother, and Sarah Palin's for Trig.

nice strawman, however.

[Franchise2001]

in fact, i'm doing the reverse- i'm saying there's no difference between Batman's regard for, and pride in, his brother, and Sarah Palin's for Trig.

nice strawman, however.

BS... you called him a former alcoholic with a disdain for special needs children.

[basso]

BS... you called him a former alcoholic with a disdain for special needs children.

where did i call him any stripe of alcoholic? i said he used to make drunken posts- i found the self-righteousness more bearable then.

[Franchise2001]

"(formerly drunken) nightly basis"

[basso]

"(formerly drunken) nightly basis"

indeed. much more fun then, he was.

[Nice Rollin]

ask 10 doctors, i wager 9 will tell you fees will be regulated, and their income (Pay) is certainly affected by the rates they can charge.
my brother is a doctor and he knows his wage might be affected, but he realizes how ****ty our healthcare system is and that some sort of change is needed. so 9 will tell you their income will come down, but they might also tell you "yeah we might make less, but it's necessary if we want healthier people"

[leroy]

or 4. there's nothing political about a picture of sarah palin holding her child.

bulls*it. Of course it was political. It's called a photo-op. It's got nothing to do with her love for her children. But don't be so naive as to think that that picture you keep pimping wasn't anything but political.

[basso]

bulls*it. Of course it was political. It's called a photo-op. It's got nothing to do with her love for her children. But don't be so naive as to think that that picture you keep pimping wasn't anything but political.

not naive, just not blinded by hate.

[Refman]

in fact, i'm doing the reverse- i'm saying there's no difference between Batman's regard for, and pride in, his brother, and Sarah Palin's for Trig.

nice strawman, however.
Your post is the biggest pile of crap ever posted. You continuously accuse Batman of hating special needs kids and then accuse him of "pimping out" his brother.

You are a low human being...very low. You should be ashamed of your behavior here.

[Batman Jones]

Your post is the biggest pile of crap ever posted. You continuously accuse Batman of hating special needs kids and then accuse him of "pimping out" his brother.

You are a low human being...very low. You should be ashamed of your behavior here.

He's a scumbag. If he doesn't get banned for this, no one should ever get banned for anything.

[Refman]

He's a scumbag. If he doesn't get banned for this, no one should ever get banned for anything.
He intentionally needles somebody, and when he finds out that it is personal, he goes at it even more.

He is much worse than a scumbag.

[basso]

He intentionally needles somebody, and when he finds out that it is personal, he goes at it even more.

He is much worse than a scumbag.

Batman just doesn't like getting "called out."

[Franchise2001]

Batman just doesn't like getting "called out."

There's a big difference between "calling somebody out" and "banworthy personal attacks." Refman is a prime example of how to have civil discourse... you are the quite the opposite.

[rimrocker]

For what seems like forever, I've been asking basso to post more of his thoughts in the threads he bombards us with. Now, when I read this thread and see that it includes more basso-typed words than any 100 of his usual threads combined, I have come to the realization that we are all better off if he just posts dispatches from wingerville and offers a smug little comment or song lyric before moving on to more wrongheaded wingnut tripe-induced threads.

His usual MO is just ridiculous, This is ugly.

[basso]

For what seems like forever, I've been asking basso to post more of his thoughts in the threads he bombards us with. Now, when I read this thread and see that it includes more basso-typed words than any 100 of his usual threads combined, I have come to the realization that we are all better off if he just posts dispatches from wingerville and offers a smug little comment or song lyric before moving on to more wrongheaded wingnut tripe-induced threads.

His usual MO is just ridiculous, This is ugly.

what's ugly, but predictable, is the constant "reinterpretation" to fit a ready made narrative. batman is a serial abuser- i begged him to stay out of this thread, and he kpt at it, spewing tripe, til he found something he could apply his own special brand of self-rightousness to, and then, when shown repeatedly he was wrong, plays the victim.

like his hero, he's a liar, but can't take being called out.

[Franchise2001]

batman is a serial abuser- i begged him to stay out of this thread
http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h219/pjcomix/blog/Wholesale_Problems001.jpg

[rimrocker]

what's ugly, but predictable, is the constant "reinterpretation" to fit a ready made narrative. batman is a serial abuser- i begged him to stay out of this thread, and he kpt at it, spewing tripe, til he found something he could apply his own special brand of self-rightousness to, and then, when shown repeatedly he was wrong, plays the victim.

like his hero, he's a liar, but can't take being called out.

Remind me where it was repeatedly shown he was wrong. Thanks.

Oh, and what are the odds that you would use the word tripe right after I did? Amazing coincidence.

[Major]

batman is a serial abuser- i begged him to stay out of this thread, and he kpt at it, spewing tripe

I would like to go ahead, in advance, request you stay out of all threads in the future. In fact, I'll beg. If you don't do so, you are no better than the person you condemn.

[Batman Jones]

Remind me where it was repeatedly shown he was wrong. Thanks.

Of course that never happened. I've never lied on here either, as basso just suggested I did. I also don't recall any occasion in which I was "called out," except maybe by the moderators for being too sensitive or hotheaded -- and that only ever after being trolled by a dick like basso.

[Refman]

what's ugly, but predictable, is the constant "reinterpretation" to fit a ready made narrative. batman is a serial abuser- i begged him to stay out of this thread, and he kpt at it, spewing tripe, til he found something he could apply his own special brand of self-rightousness to, and then, when shown repeatedly he was wrong, plays the victim.

like his hero, he's a liar, but can't take being called out.
This is hilarious. Truly comedy gold. It could not be less logical if it were written in purple crayon with every "r" backwards.

Batman is a serial abuser? Really? Are you serious? Batman is very opinionated and not afraid to express it (but I like that about him). He is not abusive without provocation.

You begged him to stay out of this thread...like that gives you a right to be a complete jackass. That is funny.

You never showed that he was wrong...about anything. In fact, with your debate skills, you probably could not disprove him if he said that noon was at night.

He never played the victim. He understandably took offense to the feces you constantly shovel at him.

For the love of God, once Batman has healed from his injuries, meet up and pick a fight with him for real. He could probably use the fun and you probably could use the butt kicking.

[basso]

it saddens me refman, to see you sucked into the insanely clownish backslapping posse and its Potemkin Rage. the truth is out there; don't expect the brownshirts to help you find it.

[GladiatoRowdy]

it saddens me refman, to see you sucked into the insanely clownish backslapping posse and its Potemkin Rage. the truth is out there; don't expect the brownshirts to help you find it.

Hey basshole,

Just because someone doesn't like the way you conduct yourself on this board doesn't make them a liberal, nor does it mean that they are philosophically one way or another. As you would know if you had any reading comprehension skills or intellectual curiosity, refman is one of the most consistent conservatives on this board.

Disagreeing with your idiocy would tend to make one smarter than the average bear, no matter their ideology.

[Rocketman95]

it saddens me refman, to see you sucked into the insanely clownish backslapping posse and its Potemkin Rage. the truth is out there; don't expect the brownshirts to help you find it.

major asked you to stay out of this thread and you are keeping at it, spewing tripe. sorry, that last part was redundant.

[Franchise2001]

major asked you to stay out of this thread and you are keeping at it, spewing tripe. sorry, that last part was redundant.

He keeps coming back because nobody will respond to his new "look at me, look at me!" thread without posting a silly picture... the amount of ownage involved in this one is awesome (look at this page alone).

[Refman]

it saddens me refman, to see you sucked into the insanely clownish backslapping posse and its Potemkin Rage. the truth is out there; don't expect the brownshirts to help you find it.
Your consistently poor behavior and lack of respect for other posters probably bothers me more than it bothers most here.

You and I tend to be on the same side of the political aisle.

It is flat out embarrassing to see another conservative stoop to the levels that you do. It hurts our side of the argument.

Either be helpful or stay out of the way of those who are.