This is sickening. No one in their right mind would argue otherwise.
Unless, you know, you actually did the math. $600k over 5 years. How much did they have to front for staff salaries? How much did they have to front for transportation? How much did they have to front for other expenses relating to the case?
Are you under the impression that we should cap their salaries, and thus make it so no one wants to take these cases on, and therefore classes of people who are wronged, but not hugely, should just shrug it off, allowing the companies to continue to do that shit?
The thing that's wrong is that the company who couldn't keep their damned systems secure could have probably made the whole thing go away and saved a lot of money by settling for $2,000 with each of the 290 original claimants which would have cost only $580,000 instead of fighting for 5 years and ending up with 11 people only getting $200 each.
Then bitch at the company, then. The lawyers for the plaintiffs are not at fault for that.
If the goal for the lawyers is to truly serve their clients... they should be looking to win a quick and fast case.
That's a pretty stupid comment. The goal is to do things RIGHT, not just fast.
I'd like to see reform of the system to dictate a maximum payout to plaintiff's lawyers of less than 25% of the amount awarded to plaintiffs.
While we're at it, I'd like to see reform of your industry to cap your pay at a tiny amount as well.
That staff of lawyers were awarded $600k after 5 YEARS of work. They weren't being paid by these people in the meantime. Sliced up, and after paying rent on their offices, and for the rest of their staff, that's not a whole hell of a lot.
That is an absolute crock of bullshit. Tell me, if you were one of these people, would you be willing to spend 5 years of your time, and god knows how much in expenses and court costs to sue this company? Of course you wouldn't.
Whoa there, cowboy. You've only described ONE aspect of the harm done to these people. There's also a very high risk of identity theft that will come to bite them in the ass later. You can't simply ignore that.
Do you expect the lawyers to work for free? Seriously, how much time do you think they spent on this case? Do you think they were paid the entire time they were working on it? Odds are they weren't.
And what you're forgetting is that, if someone went "outlaw" on you, there was absolutely no way for you to get justice. If you sued someone for wronging you, and they decided to fuck off, then you were unable to pursue any claim to make yourself whole. That's a completely worthless justice system if I ever saw one.
Most people including myself don't sign them because I don't want to read 20 pages of legal jargon and sign my name to it.
So you use that as an excuse for why you don't want to take responsibility for yourself? Interesting. I thought you asshats were all about "personal responsibility" and "reading the fine print". Good to see you don't actually practice it.
Yes, you're going to be pissed off at Libya, when in fact, Obama kept the US OUT of most of the Libyan conflict, and spent very little money supporting France and the other nations that took the head.
It's also the opinion of the founding fathers of the U.S. who authored the U.S. Constitution.
Yeah, no. It's not. It might be shared by some of them, but definitely not all of them.
And even so, that doesn't change things. They were not some infallible deity; they were just men. And times have changed since their times.
I can agree with you here. I don't believe I ever espoused this idea at all.
Yes, you have. That's all you've said. If something is receiving government money, then it must not be worth having. And that is completely and utterly false.
No, we're not broke. That's a baldfaced lie and you know it.
And if you're looking for shit to cut in the budget, start with shit that actually would make an impact. Not shit that is little more than a rounding error in the budget.
But you are also wrong that the small stuff should therefore be left untouched.
No, he's not. The small stuff should be ignored because IT DOESN'T MAKE A FUCKING DIFFERENCE. Cut the big stuff until the small stuff might make a difference, and then we'll talk.
If you refuse to even cut NPR after you state they don't really need the money, where will you cut?
With cuts that actually make a fucking difference in the budget. Not your worthless, "I don't like this, so I'm going to suggest that it's cut, despite the fact that it is a rounding error in the budget," bullshit.
The rest of your comment is worthless drivel that I shouldn't bother to respond to. But against my better judgement, I will. I know they don't have the greatest of profit margins. Tough titties. They still get HUGE subsidies and tax breaks, which are far, far bigger than what you want to cut. That is where it should start. Your refusal to acknowledge this is you playing favorites and ignoring that "reality says things like that can't continue."
Seriously, how the fuck can you defend these subsidies (and you trying to cover up the fact that they exist doesn't change the fact that they do) while saying that other shit should be cut?
A better choice, at least if you're more left leaning, would be to do something like what the Tea Party did with the GOP. Rather than run as a 3rd party, which in reality does not have much, if any chance, of winning, you create a movement in the party, and start getting more progressive candidates nominated through the primary process. That's how the Tea Party was able to wield so much control over the GOP. If they had gone 3rd party, no one would give a shit, because they wouldn't have any kind of chance to get anyone elected.
Yes, there have been stories about the Muslim Brotherhood gaining seats in the Egyptian Parliament. But remember, the US didn't get involved in their revolution. And what's the alternative? The US telling them who they can and cannot elect? Seriously, your analysis is incredibly shitty.
Wow, such ignorance. Got anything credible to actually back that shit up? No, of course not. You're going to claim that it's "suppressed", like every other conspiracy nut.
Wow, you are not only a huge bigot, but you lie like a rug, too. Nothing you've said has basis in fact, nothing is even remotely believable, and yet, you're trying to paint yourself as "persecuted" for saying it. Like somehow you have the truth, and others are preventing you from getting it out, rather than just ignoring your worthless ass.
Slashdot Mirror
This is sickening. No one in their right mind would argue otherwise.
Unless, you know, you actually did the math. $600k over 5 years. How much did they have to front for staff salaries? How much did they have to front for transportation? How much did they have to front for other expenses relating to the case?
Are you under the impression that we should cap their salaries, and thus make it so no one wants to take these cases on, and therefore classes of people who are wronged, but not hugely, should just shrug it off, allowing the companies to continue to do that shit?
The thing that's wrong is that the company who couldn't keep their damned systems secure could have probably made the whole thing go away and saved a lot of money by settling for $2,000 with each of the 290 original claimants which would have cost only $580,000 instead of fighting for 5 years and ending up with 11 people only getting $200 each.
Then bitch at the company, then. The lawyers for the plaintiffs are not at fault for that.
If the goal for the lawyers is to truly serve their clients... they should be looking to win a quick and fast case.
That's a pretty stupid comment. The goal is to do things RIGHT, not just fast.
You're gonna need a citation to back that shit up, bucko.
I'd like to see reform of the system to dictate a maximum payout to plaintiff's lawyers of less than 25% of the amount awarded to plaintiffs.
While we're at it, I'd like to see reform of your industry to cap your pay at a tiny amount as well.
That staff of lawyers were awarded $600k after 5 YEARS of work. They weren't being paid by these people in the meantime. Sliced up, and after paying rent on their offices, and for the rest of their staff, that's not a whole hell of a lot.
That is an absolute crock of bullshit. Tell me, if you were one of these people, would you be willing to spend 5 years of your time, and god knows how much in expenses and court costs to sue this company? Of course you wouldn't.
Whoa there, cowboy. You've only described ONE aspect of the harm done to these people. There's also a very high risk of identity theft that will come to bite them in the ass later. You can't simply ignore that.
Do you expect the lawyers to work for free? Seriously, how much time do you think they spent on this case? Do you think they were paid the entire time they were working on it? Odds are they weren't.
Why don't you look at how much work the lawyers put in, over how many years.
Yeah, no. This is about as "Free Market" as it gets. The lawyers for both sides set their rates before going in.
pay off those who were never harmed.
Go fuck yourself and your "I get to decide who was harmed" bullshit.
And what you're forgetting is that, if someone went "outlaw" on you, there was absolutely no way for you to get justice. If you sued someone for wronging you, and they decided to fuck off, then you were unable to pursue any claim to make yourself whole. That's a completely worthless justice system if I ever saw one.
In reality, there is very, very little difference between the two.
Most people including myself don't sign them because I don't want to read 20 pages of legal jargon and sign my name to it.
So you use that as an excuse for why you don't want to take responsibility for yourself? Interesting. I thought you asshats were all about "personal responsibility" and "reading the fine print". Good to see you don't actually practice it.
Yes, you're going to be pissed off at Libya, when in fact, Obama kept the US OUT of most of the Libyan conflict, and spent very little money supporting France and the other nations that took the head.
I'm sorry, you've just got nothing to stand on.
I did not blame Obama for "all of it"
Yes, you have. Both here and in other comments. You claim to not like any of them, yet Obama is the only one that gets the blame.
If you look at my original post I blamed Obama for al-Queda's takeover of Libya.
Something that hasn't actually happened.
It's also the opinion of the founding fathers of the U.S. who authored the U.S. Constitution.
Yeah, no. It's not. It might be shared by some of them, but definitely not all of them.
And even so, that doesn't change things. They were not some infallible deity; they were just men. And times have changed since their times.
I can agree with you here. I don't believe I ever espoused this idea at all.
Yes, you have. That's all you've said. If something is receiving government money, then it must not be worth having. And that is completely and utterly false.
No, we're not broke. That's a baldfaced lie and you know it.
And if you're looking for shit to cut in the budget, start with shit that actually would make an impact. Not shit that is little more than a rounding error in the budget.
Raising taxes in the current reality would almost certainly reduce revenue
You have absolutely no source for this, stop your fucking lying.
But you are also wrong that the small stuff should therefore be left untouched.
No, he's not. The small stuff should be ignored because IT DOESN'T MAKE A FUCKING DIFFERENCE. Cut the big stuff until the small stuff might make a difference, and then we'll talk.
If you refuse to even cut NPR after you state they don't really need the money, where will you cut?
With cuts that actually make a fucking difference in the budget. Not your worthless, "I don't like this, so I'm going to suggest that it's cut, despite the fact that it is a rounding error in the budget," bullshit.
The rest of your comment is worthless drivel that I shouldn't bother to respond to. But against my better judgement, I will. I know they don't have the greatest of profit margins. Tough titties. They still get HUGE subsidies and tax breaks, which are far, far bigger than what you want to cut. That is where it should start. Your refusal to acknowledge this is you playing favorites and ignoring that "reality says things like that can't continue."
Seriously, how the fuck can you defend these subsidies (and you trying to cover up the fact that they exist doesn't change the fact that they do) while saying that other shit should be cut?
And both the bailouts and the wars were started before he was elected.
A better choice, at least if you're more left leaning, would be to do something like what the Tea Party did with the GOP. Rather than run as a 3rd party, which in reality does not have much, if any chance, of winning, you create a movement in the party, and start getting more progressive candidates nominated through the primary process. That's how the Tea Party was able to wield so much control over the GOP. If they had gone 3rd party, no one would give a shit, because they wouldn't have any kind of chance to get anyone elected.
So that's a NO on having any citation?
Yes, there have been stories about the Muslim Brotherhood gaining seats in the Egyptian Parliament. But remember, the US didn't get involved in their revolution. And what's the alternative? The US telling them who they can and cannot elect? Seriously, your analysis is incredibly shitty.
The fact is: I don't see any difference between Bush/Obama/Romney.
Yet, you seem to hold Obama responsible for all of it, and only bash Obama. Doesn't really fit with your claim of "not seeing any difference".
Wow, such ignorance. Got anything credible to actually back that shit up? No, of course not. You're going to claim that it's "suppressed", like every other conspiracy nut.
Wow, you are not only a huge bigot, but you lie like a rug, too. Nothing you've said has basis in fact, nothing is even remotely believable, and yet, you're trying to paint yourself as "persecuted" for saying it. Like somehow you have the truth, and others are preventing you from getting it out, rather than just ignoring your worthless ass.