WENDY DAVIS - SUGARBABY

[Jewish Lawyer]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Hey fuckhead. Linda is totally independent. Not "run" by anybody. Not at an AMP. In her own townhouse. Picture of her boyfriend is a picture of Godzilla. Are you NOW going to say that all Asian masseuses are here against their will?

I suggest you make this comment in the San Antonio forum, pussy!

Sorry, shithead. You lose!

Hey Fuckface - you put it in the Spa/Studio/MP Reviews/Discussions San Antonio.
All my reviews of Asians are in the similarly name forum in Dallas.
You made a statement against interest, because you are a stupid fucking faggot!!!

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

Is this a common clause in most child custody cases?: Yes

In documents obtained by RedState, Wendy Davis’s own child requested her father be her custodian. Likewise, in filing his divorce against Wendy Davis, her husband requested the court enter the temporary restraining order.

The court, without an evidentiary hearing, did so. Yes. See the temporary restraining order here. The court ordered that Wendy Davis “be immediately restrained from . . . using illegal drugs or consuming alcohol within 24 hours before or during the period of possession of or access to the child.” Yes

http://www.redstate.com/2014/01/21/a...s-and-alcohol/

Some counties (like Montgomery) have a "standing order" ... mutual for both.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by WTF

Well if the government starts paying lawyers like they do doctors with Medicare...

Are you talking about the prosecutors or the court appointed attorneys?

[timpage]

Seriously?

Originally Posted by ExNYer

If a tree fell on you when you were on someone's property, why wouldn't you get to a jury? He wasn't on the person's property who owned the tree. He was jogging by the property. It absolutely astonishes me that I am having to argue with a Republican who takes the position that when a tree falls on someone as a result of the wind blowing that the property owner is responsible. I can assure you, that is not what most Republicans would say. Jesus, are you serious?What specific changes to premises liability can you cite that would prevent you from, say, suing Kroger if you slipped on cooking oil from a broken bottle? I can cite a myriad of changes to premises liability law. Where would you like to start since we are apparently starting from zero in regard to your knowledge of the topic? The reduction in cases going to court stems from the lessened threat of exorbitant jury verdicts. Defendants know that damages are capped on pain and suffering, so the jury award will ultimately be tied more closely to the provable damages - medical bills, lost wages, etc. Since jury awards are more objectively verifiable in advance, then plaintiffs are more inclined to settle. Yeah, sort of my point. We don't let jury's decide anymore, we let appellate judges elected by insurance company money decide. I guess, like all Republicans, you're an advocate of the Constitution except when it comes to the provisions of the Constitution....like trial by jury....that you don't like. You trust the Founding Fathers to have made all the right decisions in regard to limited government and all the other bullshit that you think the Constitution stands for....but the provisions that are absolutely clearly required like....Trial by Jury....well...we can waive that one, right? You're all confused on this one bud....get a clue.
If I had to make one change, I would make reasonable lawyer's fee compensable any time the plaintiff prevails in a tort injury case. That way the lawyer fees don't eat into the economic loss compensation the plaintiff receives.
Oh, right. The only change you would make would be directed towards the greedy lawyers. Well, next time you get fucked over by an insurance company, or next time somebody kills your mom, or your child, or your wife or somebody else near and dear to you....you just head right out and hire up a lawyer to represent you at the going rate of $400 per hour. Oh....wait.....if you do that....does it mean that 98% of the population can't afford legal representation?

Get a clue.



The problem with the "anecdotal" tale of the runaway jury verdict is that it promotes excessive settlement awards in other cases that never get to trial. Those are the cases that you do not see in the papers, so you don't see any evidence of them.

Doctors kill and injure people in every country in the world, not just the USA. And yet, other countries manage to survive without our tort system.

In fact, in the UK and other countries, they have "loser pays" systems. Why don't we? If you REALLY want to reduce litigation, implement loser pays in the US, then see what happens.

But in most of the rest of the world, since government runs the healthcare systems, when you sue the doctor or hospital, you are really suing the government. Needless to say, the government takes a dim view of that, so the folks in Europe don't get to sue for millions for broken legs either.

Nonetheless, Europeans lose income when they are hurt, even if the government pays their health bills. And they have pain and suffering when they get hurt, just like we do. And, on top of that, they have loser pays in many countries.

How is is that they survive without the threat of exorbitant jury awards, but we cannot?

And what do you think is going to happen in this country once we go to a completely government funded healthcare system? And we are, believe me. Even if Obamacare has to get completely overhauled because it is an Edsel, we are going to have a system where everyone is on some new and improved universal version of Medicare.

Both the doctors and the hospitals will have greatly reduced revenues in a national healthcare system - just look at doctor pay in other countries. So, if the doctors and hospitals have less money, where does the money come from to pay big jury verdicts under a federally run universal healthcare system? The government, that's where. Do you really think the federal government is going to pay all those verdicts without putting some kind of caps in place?

The key to getting rid of bad doctors is to yank their licenses. That is what happens in other countries - and even here to a lesser degree. Large pain and suffering awards is a clumsy and ineffective way to do it.

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Are you talking about the prosecutors or the court appointed attorneys?

Good one!

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

Wendy the 'Gold Digger".

check out http://www.eccie.net/providers.php?do=view&id=194958

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Are you talking about the prosecutors or the court appointed attorneys?

Knowing WTF, he's talking whichever are the TEA Partiers.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Are you talking about the prosecutors or the court appointed attorneys?

Well both. What one would like to have is at least a minimum standard that folks with no means to pay are afforded both legal counsel and medical care. We give free medical care to inmates...why not the poor? Both are in need of an overhaul IMHO. That would of course not preclude a person with means to pay for both more healthcare and better legal representation. You folks act as if it is one or the other. Many countries have both public and private sector healthcare.

That of course would not include free Dental service for folks in the Tea Party.

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by WTF

Well both. What one would like to have is at least a minimum standard that folks with no means to pay are afforded both legal counsel and medical care. We give free medical care to inmates...why not the poor? ....

We do. It's call Medicaid. You could use some genetic counselling.

[Whirlaway]

Now that we understand that her children were an inconvenience and that she was eager to give their custody to her soon to be ex-husband we can appreciate her position on late term, very late term, abortion.



I personally endorse Wendy Davis 's message:
"Get yourselves a sugar daddy, young single moms." ----I 'm Wendy Davis and I approved this ad.

[Whirlaway]

Great vid Iffy; thanks for posting.....nothing better than Texas honky tonk......

[BJerk]

Originally Posted by WTF

Well both. What one would like to have is at least a minimum standard that folks with no means to pay are afforded both legal counsel and medical care. We give free medical care to inmates...why not the poor? Both are in need of an overhaul IMHO. That would of course not preclude a person with means to pay for both more healthcare and better legal representation. You folks act as if it is one or the other. Many countries have both public and private sector healthcare.

That of course would not include free Dental service for folks in the Tea Party.

I agree with everything except the lack of dental care for tooth challenged hillbillies. They need it worse than anyone after they suck down all those Mountain Dew's.

[BJerk]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Now that we understand that her children were an inconvenience and that she was eager to give their custody to her soon to be ex-husband we can appreciate her position on late term, very late term, abortion.



I personally endorse Wendy Davis 's message:
"Get yourselves a sugar daddy, young single moms." ----I 'm Wendy Davis and I approved this ad.

OK, so you people are getting in some satisfying (to you) cheap shots. If you were really clever, you would have waited til late in the real campaign to torpedo her. She will temporarily suffer from this and then it will be forgotten or disregarded by then time she gets elected.

[BJerk]

Originally Posted by timpage

Seriously?

ExNyer isn't as smart as he thinks he is, but he is definitely an apologist for rich Republicans.

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Now that we understand that her children were an inconvenience and that she was eager to give their custody to her soon to be ex-husband we can appreciate her position on late term, very late term, abortion.

I personally endorse Wendy Davis 's message:
"Get yourselves a sugar daddy, young single moms." ----I 'm Wendy Davis and I approved this ad.

I wonder what her oldest daughter thinks about her mother's abortion stance.

"If you don't like your Sugar Daddy, you don't have to keep your Sugar Daddy. Loan Period."

Prediction: when she gets too far behind in the polls she'll announce she's a lesbian and pictures of her kissing another hot woman will surface.