APP - we have met the enemy and he is us

You pulled the 2.5 mil award figure out of your ass along with some arbitrary length of term, then divided the first figure by the second and claimed that was what the victim would receive annually. I showed you how stupid that was, that the interest on the award itself was several times more than your stupid division. So you pulled a hypothetical situation out of your ass then "documented" the cost.

You refuse to acknowledge your initial error and are going to great lengths to bury it in bullshit.
 
Southern Man said:
You pulled the 2.5 mil award figure out of your ass along with some arbitrary length of term, then divided the first figure by the second and claimed that was what the victim would receive annually. I showed you how stupid that was, that the interest on the award itself was several times more than your stupid division. So you pulled a hypothetical situation out of your ass then "documented" the cost.

You refuse to acknowledge your initial error and are going to great lengths to bury it in bullshit.
Click to expand...

I was using an arbitrary figure in my example. Then you tried to make it seem as if it were plenty of money.

I used the information from the link to show the true costs of in home care. Thereby showing your quote of $175k a year as a paltry sum for the victim.

It showed that Tort Reform is not what those who champion it claim it is. It harms the victim and protects companies from liability for their own negligence.

There are flaws in the lawsuit system, but tort reform is not the solution.
 
WinterBorn said:
I was using an arbitrary figure in my example. Then you tried to make it seem as if it were plenty of money.

I used the information from the link to show the true costs of in home care. Thereby showing your quote of $175k a year as a paltry sum for the victim.

It showed that Tort Reform is not what those who champion it claim it is. It harms the victim and protects companies from liability for their own negligence.

There are flaws in the lawsuit system, but tort reform is not the solution.
Click to expand...
You neglected to consider the time value of money- a huge error which I have pointed out and you refuse to recognize. Also, your arbitrary figure cannot be compared with an actual figure in a legitimate argument.
 
Southern Man said:
You neglected to consider the time value of money- a huge error which I have pointed out and you refuse to recognize. Also, your arbitrary figure cannot be compared with an actual figure in a legitimate argument.
Click to expand...

If it costs the victim $148k to have 24 hour in home health care, what does the "time value of money" change about the figures we have discussed?
 
Actually, I wrote this: "$2.5 million at 7% generates $175K annually without touching the principle, loser. *shrug* ", setting you off on your latest hissy fit.
 
Southern Man said:
Actually, I wrote this: "$2.5 million at 7% generates $175K annually without touching the principle, loser. *shrug* ", setting you off on your latest hissy fit.
Click to expand...

I threw a hissy fit? lol I was arguing the facts. You, on the other hand, had your posts edited half a dozen times.

I think its obvious who threw the hissy fit.
 
Southern Man said:
Florida is a swamp and people where never meant to live there in any large numbers. I predicted this 35 years ago. *shrug*
Click to expand...
I have to agree with you. The situation in Florida is not sustainable. The watershed cannot handle the numbers of people present. It's a matter of time before it collapses.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I have to agree with you. The situation in Florida is not sustainable. The watershed cannot handle the numbers of people present. It's a matter of time before it collapses.
Click to expand...
Same with Arizona. 150 years ago a man could travel through Arizona on horseback by traveling alongside the rivers. There was plenty of trees for shade and firewood, fish in the rivers and rabbits in the fields for food, and subsistence from cactus fruit and other succulents. Then they moved people there, sunk wells and pumped the groundwater dry, eventually lowering it more than 200'. The rivers are now dry except during storms, there are no fish and almost no wild game, and shade is few and far between.
 
WinterBorn said:
I threw a hissy fit? lol I was arguing the facts. You, on the other hand, had your posts edited half a dozen times.

I think its obvious who threw the hissy fit.
Click to expand...
So Damo's decided to enforce his new policy. That doesn't change the fact that you screwed up, or you don't understand the concept of interest, then went all hissy when I pointed it out. *shrug*
 
Southern Man said:
So Damo's decided to enforce his new policy. That doesn't change the fact that you screwed up, or you don't understand the concept of interest, then went all hissy when I pointed it out. *shrug*
Click to expand...

I understand perfectly well. I also understand the quoted cost of $148k to have 24 hour in home care in Charlotte NC. And that will eat up most of the interest earned.

I have said that reform is needed. But Tort Reform (as has been put forth in recent years - since first started as a movement by the tobacco industry) is not the answer.

If we are going to press for personal responsibility, then companies should be responsible for their actions as well.
 
WinterBorn said:
I understand perfectly well. I also understand the quoted cost of $148k to have 24 hour in home care in Charlotte NC. And that will eat up most of the interest earned.

I have said that reform is needed. But Tort Reform (as has been put forth in recent years - since first started as a movement by the tobacco industry) is not the answer.

If we are going to press for personal responsibility, then companies should be responsible for their actions as well.
Click to expand...

Again you bring up some factual numbers to compare with your made-up ones. It still doesn't make a sensical argument no matter how much you hope and wish for it to be so. Be a man and admit that you screwed up.
 
Southern Man said:
Same with Arizona. 150 years ago a man could travel through Arizona on horseback by traveling alongside the rivers. There was plenty of trees for shade and firewood, fish in the rivers and rabbits in the fields for food, and subsistence from cactus fruit and other succulents. Then they moved people there, sunk wells and pumped the groundwater dry, eventually lowering it more than 200'. The rivers are now dry except during storms, there are no fish and almost no wild game, and shade is few and far between.
Click to expand...
Yea they sold what little water they had to southern California. Those aren't the only two examples. The Mississippi delta is another. They can't continue the agricultural practice of constantly rotating cotton and rice. Eventually the ecosystem will break down.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I have to agree with you. The situation in Florida is not sustainable. The watershed cannot handle the numbers of people present. It's a matter of time before it collapses.
Click to expand...

If energy costs go down a lot (which will only happen with a lot of research into renewables) we could supplement the water supply with desalinization.
 
uscitizen said:
So there are no issues with storing it in Yucca mountain? All that is solved?

Of course it is political. No one want's it in their back yard.
I personally think each state capitol should have an accompanying nuke storage facility for that states waste only. Knowing politicians, it would be stored safely.
Click to expand...

Another of USC's retarded solutions.
 
Southern Man said:
You're not advocating the best scientific solution, which is what I've stated. Is it perfect?- no, but it is certainly better than what you're your proposing, which is also of course a political impossibility in most states so would result in decommissioning of most nuclear energy plants.
Click to expand...

Not all states have an ideal place to store nuclear waste. USC's solution would put a dramatically increased amount of lives at risk with no conceivable benefit.

Modern nuclear plants simply do not produce a lot of nuclear waste, not nearly as much as the old ones. Models on the drawing board produce no nuclear waste and have passive shutdown features which make a meltdown physically impossible. The vast majority of nuclear waste that is ever going to be produced has already been produced.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top