More Proof Of Idiotic Lawyers And Folks Running Around

UNTLifer · October 19, 2007

From YahooSports.com

Paralyzed Vegas club manager suing NFL, Tennessee Titans and suspended 'Pacman' Jones

By KEN RITTER, Associated Press Writer
October 19, 2007
AP - Oct 19, 2:53 pm EDT
More Photos

LAS VEGAS (AP) -- A strip club manager paralyzed in a triple shooting is suing the NFL, the Tennessee Titans and suspended football player Adam "Pacman" Jones, claiming they're responsible for his injuries.
Tommy Urbanski seeks unspecified damages in the lawsuit, which his lawyer, Matthew Dushoff, said would be filed Friday in Clark County District Court. It also names the owners of Harlem Knights, a Houston strip club that rented the Minxx Gentleman's Club in Las Vegas in February for a party the weekend of the NBA All-Star game.
"The fact that the NFL and the Titans did not punish Adam 'Pacman' Jones until after Tommy was paralyzed is a proximate cause of Tommy's injuries," Dushoff said before a news conference at a Henderson hotel with Urbanski and his wife, Kathleen.
Jones' attorney, Robert Langford, denied the troubled cornerback had any responsibility for the man's injuries, and called seeking damages from the player, the NFL and the Titans "a 'Hail Mary' pass."
"There's no basis in fact for suing the NFL and the Titans," Langford said.
ADVERTISEMENT

Jones faces two felony charges alleging he incited a melee and threatened to kill people inside the club minutes before the shooting outside. No one has been charged in the shooting.
Jones was suspended for the 2007 season in April for violating the NFL's personal conduct policy.
"From my heart, I feel bad for this guy and his family," Langford told The Associated Press. "But Pacman Jones is not the shooter. No one has said that he is. There's not one bit of evidence to link him to Mr. Urbanski's injury."
Urbanski, a former professional wrestler, was shot four times and was left paralyzed from the waist down in the Feb. 19 shooting. He spent several months rehabilitating at a Denver hospital before moving in August to a hotel in Henderson because his house has not been outfitted to accommodate a wheelchair.
Urbanski told reporters he holds the NFL responsible for his injuries because he believed they ignored Jones' previous run-ins with police.
"Even, 'three strikes and you're out,' and this wouldn't have happened to me," Urbanski said at a news conference with his schoolteacher wife.
Jones was arrested six times after being drafted by the Titans with the sixth pick overall in April 2005. After his arrest in Las Vegas, he was suspended by the NFL but he could be reinstated after Nov. 19.
"We've done our homework on this. If Jones had been disciplined earlier, more likely than not, he would not have been invited as NFL player Pacman Jones to the club," Dushoff said.
Langford said that if Jones offered to help Urbanski, "someone would say he had something to do with his injury and we were admitting liability."
"So we're stuck in a situation where we express our sympathy and go to court," Jones' lawyer said.
The NFL and the Titans also said they would fight the lawsuit. Harlem Knights representatives in Houston did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment.
"We have great sympathy for Tommy and Kathy, but we strongly disagree with any claims against the NFL and the Titans and will respond appropriately to the court," NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said.
Employment law attorney Kathy England said Nevada law could limit Urbanski's attempts to link the case to the NFL and the Titans. State law protects employers from injury caused by an employee's intentional conduct if the employee is on his own time, she said.
Dushoff argues Jones was invited to the club as a representative of the NFL.
Police and prosecutors in Las Vegas allege that Jones sparked the melee inside the club when he threw cash on stage, an act dubbed "making it rain," and became enraged after two dancers began scuffling over the money.
Jones also faces two other civil lawsuits in the fracas, and is scheduled for a preliminary hearing Oct. 29 in Las Vegas on criminal coercion charges that could bring a maximum of 12 years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
Urbanski's lawsuit alleges assault, battery, emotional distress, conspiracy and negligence, and claims Urbanski's injuries were caused by the actions of Jones and unnamed others "within the scope of their employment" with the NFL and the Titans.
It says Harlem Knights invited Jones to the club and gave him VIP treatment "because Jones is a prominent NFL football player."
"The NFL and the Titans had the authority and the duty to discipline Jones for conduct on or off the field that was detrimental to the Titans and/or the NFL," according to the suit.
Two other people shot, Minxx club bouncer Aaron Cudworth and patron Natalie Jones, have sued the Titans' cornerback. Cudworth also is suing people he identified as members of Pacman Jones' entourage, while Natalie Jones also names Harlem Nights in her lawsuit.
Associated Press writers Teresa M. Walker in Nashville, Tenn., and Kathleen Hennessey in Las Vegas contributed to this report.

UNTflyer · October 19, 2007

Sue Pacman, maybe even the Harlem Knights. But the NFL and Titans are not responsible here.

Just another argument for a "Loser Pays" system of tort law.

Edited October 19, 2007 by UNTflyer

MGW · October 21, 2007

Just another argument for a "Loser Pays" system of tort law.

Can you post a link to what you mean by that phrase "Loser Pays"? I am not 100% sure what it means but believe I have heard it before and thus I am interested in reading about it. It is worth noting that tort liability in large part is a function of the individual state, drawing upon tenets of federalism, which I am sure you are not criticizing.

As a UNT Political Philosophy major and Tulane juris doctor holder, my personal view on America's system of "tort law," (p.s. "tort was a phrase that I really didn't know what meant until first year Tort law... I digress) is that it is the best system of civil justice in history.

If you disagree with this statement, please specify as to what you disagree. Is it common law? Is it federalism? Is it the principle of a jury of one's peers? Appellate decisions?

I would like to know more of what you mean, as I am sure there is a disagreement between us where perhaps I could learn from your perspective, but I am not 100% sure of your position.

Please Advise

Smitty · October 22, 2007

Can you post a link to what you mean by that phrase "Loser Pays"? I am not 100% sure what it means but believe I have heard it before and thus I am interested in reading about it. It is worth noting that tort liability in large part is a function of the individual state, drawing upon tenets of federalism, which I am sure you are not criticizing.
As a UNT Political Philosophy major and Tulane juris doctor holder, my personal view on America's system of "tort law," (p.s. "tort was a phrase that I really didn't know what meant until first year Tort law... I digress) is that it is the best system of civil justice in history.
If you disagree with this statement, please specify as to what you disagree. Is it common law? Is it federalism? Is it the principle of a jury of one's peers? Appellate decisions?
I would like to know more of what you mean, as I am sure there is a disagreement between us where perhaps I could learn from your perspective, but I am not 100% sure of your position.
Please Advise

I think this refers to the system in which the loser in a lawsuit pays the other side's legal fees - which can be substantial even in a small lawsuit. It's nothing for defense of a relatively minor personal injury suit to top $20,000 or $30,000. In "loser pays" system, if you sue someone and lose, you pay the other side's legal fees. It could be a deterent to lawsuits, frivolous and otherwise.

Of course, the VAST majority of cases never go to trial since neither side wants to gamble on a jury, so they settle. I suppose, however, that this kind of rule change could increase the number of cases that go to trial based on defendants - especially aggressive corporate defendants - taking the gamble of going to trial for a chance to get back their legal costs. If a company makes it clear that they will go to trial, people might be hesitant to sue them for fear of incurring a huge penalty if they lose.

(No, I'm not a lawyer, but I've worked in corporate legal departments)

KRAM1 · October 22, 2007

You guys sound like a bunch of lawyers...and that's never a good thing! Too many lawyers out there driving up the costs of everyday products and services and allowing folks to forget about personal responsibility...go back to the woman who sued McD's for spilling hot coffee in her lap! Give me a break...coffee...hot...get it? Be careful...and all the tobacco lawsuits...I am hitting 60 next month and I've known all my life that smoking is bad for me! So, let me see...I know it's bad for me, I know I can get really sick if I smoke...so, I smoke anyway...I die...and my wife sues and gets millions! Or, I drive like an idiot drunk, crash my car and get hurt and I sue the bar who sold me the drinks because some 21 year old kid should have known I was too "tipsy" to drive a car! Shall I go on?????

Lawyers have made millions and millions off these type of lawsuits...ask John Edwards how well he's doing financially....

I AM NOT anti-lawyer or anti-American legal system...it IS the best in the world...BUT, I do think we need to go back to some common sense and start training and graduating lawyers who respect the law and who will tell a guy...get over it...you are responsible for this in the first place! And, some judges (who are more often than not lawuyers) who will stop these dumb lawsuits from even making it to court in the first place! This sort of thing gives lawyers and the legal profession a VERY BAD name, but so far the professions seems unwilling to police itself and clean up its act.

A few bad apples as they say.....when there are jokes about snakes and lawyers and the snake is the "good guy" in the joke...you know you might just want to look at some of what's going on.

Like I said...our legal system and our legal professionals are the BEST in the world and 99.9% do a great job and provide professional, quality and honest services at a fair price...BUT, that 0.1% sure get a lot of the press! If you don't believe it, just read the above! Should never be allowed to hit the legal; system...My guess...the lawyer went to this guy and suggested he sue, and provided some trumped up grounds upon which to sue in the hopes of a big settlement...of which the lawyer will get a lion's share...fee and costs, etc., etc. Do you think he took it on a contingency?????

O.K., sorry if this gets everyone going. This sort of lawsuit just "fries my tail". Soapbox time.

Quoner · October 22, 2007

You guys sound like a bunch of lawyers...and that's never a good thing! Too many lawyers out there driving up the costs of everyday products and services and allowing folks to forget about personal responsibility...go back to the woman who sued McD's for spilling hot coffee in her lap!

I agree with you - but the McDonald's suit was an odd combination of corporate ego, repeat offenses and a few other factors where it almost makes it seem like a slam dunk the woman didn't win. Once they reduced her damages, it really wasn't that big a deal.

There's actually a Risk Management class on campus that features that case as one of the opening items. Thanks Brenda Wells!

October 22, 2007

I agree with you - but the McDonald's suit was an odd combination of corporate ego, repeat offenses and a few other factors where it almost makes it seem like a slam dunk the woman didn't win. Once they reduced her damages, it really wasn't that big a deal.
There's actually a Risk Management class on campus that features that case as one of the opening items. Thanks Brenda Wells!

The McDonald's case isn't like your "common sense" paints it to be.

You should go look it up. It was just "hot coffee in her lap." It was molten lava on her labia's. Of which, she didn't sign up for that.. I want to see someone who would volunteer for skin grafts on their genitals because it was hotter than liquid should ever be hot.

Article.

What the jury didn't realize initially was the severity of her burns. Told during the trial of Mrs. Liebeck's seven days in the hospital and her skin grafts, and shown gruesome photographs, jurors began taking the matter more seriously. "It made me come home and tell my wife and daughters don't drink coffee in the car, at least not hot," says juror Jack Elliott.
Even more eye-opening was the revelation that McDonald's had seen such injuries many times before. Company documents showed that in the past decade McDonald's had received at least 700 reports of coffee burns ranging from mild to third degree, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000.

Quoner · October 23, 2007

The McDonald's case isn't like your "common sense" paints it to be.
You should go look it up. It was just "hot coffee in her lap." It was molten lava on her labia's. Of which, she didn't sign up for that.. I want to see someone who would volunteer for skin grafts on their genitals because it was hotter than liquid should ever be hot.
Article.

Damn it - that is twice today I have mis-typed what I wanted to say.

I meant to say pretty much what you said and say it was a wonder McD's even took the case to court after this woman's trauma plus the several other similar cases.

It came out as regurgiated dog crap.

I guess some of the posters really are contagious here. I am going to sleep and bathe myself in the morning until the stupid comes off.

KRAM1 · October 23, 2007

And what part of hot coffee do you not understand when you buy it? It gets down to who spilled the crap and how that happened in my book. Did the McD folks pour it on her? If so, yep, they pay...or did she place the "hot" coffee in a spot in the car when she drove off where it might just spill if not situated properly? Gee, who is responsible for that?

I do not want to rehash this case, and I have read about it...the severity of the burns, etc. I feel very badly for the lady, but it doesn't change my opinion of this whole lawsuit...nor does what i have read in the transcript or in any review of the case by any "legal scholar". Sorry...I am just on the side of "personal responsibility"...Coffee..."HOT"...might burn if you spill it...yes, some coffee is hotter than others...Coffee "hot"...I need to be careful! :blink:

KRAM1 · October 23, 2007

Oh, in case you were wondering, and in case you are a trial lwayer...you may not want me in your jury pool in one of these cases if you are on the "I want my money and I want lots of it" side of the case. :lol:

MGW · October 23, 2007

Oh, in case you were wondering, and in case you are a trial lwayer...you may not want me in your jury pool in one of these cases if you are on the "I want my money and I want lots of it" side of the case.

I wasn't wondering, but now that you mention it, do you think the notion of punitive damages is a bad idea? Alternatively, do you think contingency fees are a bad idea?

KRAM1 · October 24, 2007

Punitive damages are way over the line...and if we put a lid on the contingency fee thing many of these "idiot" lawsuits would stop and lawyers could get down to the real "lawyering" that needs to be done.

The idea that a guy making $6.00/hr. should get say...$200,000,000 in punitive and "pain and suffering" damages is pure insanity. There should be some sort of adequate compensation in damage awards...say for medical expenses (real ones...not the mental kind because someones feelings were hurt), lost wages and actual damage to property, etc.

I worked with some of the tabacco trial lawyers in my "prior life", and they were raking in millions and millions...and I MEAN...millions and millions over a long period of years for their "work" against the tabacco companies. What a joke! I don't blame them, they saw a cash cow and went after it...good for them...it's the system that needs fixing. These guys were flying all over the country in their person Gulfstream 4 jets, driving VERY high dollar autos, living in multi-million dollar homes, sailing multi-million dollar yachts all from the tabacco trials they were involved in...the folks they represented...none are in that kind of shape...nor should they be...but neither should the lawyers.

I could go on and on about this...we MUST enact meaningful tort reforms in this country...and SOON!

No, I am not on the side of big business or the tabacco companies...I don't smoke, never have...but, the idea of these "awards" are simply GREED in its purest form. I don't see that the tabacco companies have stopped manufacturing and selling their products. NOR should they...it's legal. I wonder how may folks in the SE have been put out of work and how many small farmers have lost their farms over these payments to the trail lawyers, etc.?

Stuff is bad for you...you know it...don't do it! Smoking BAD...don't smoke! If you do and you get sick...BLAME YOURSELF. If you drink too much you get drunk and your judgement is impaired...don't drive and don't storm your neighbors back door...something bad might happen...if so...it's your fault. Don't blame the bar of the beer company...too much booze...BAD...we all know that...don't do it or take responsibility if you do!

Drink hot coffee...you spill it...wow...it hurts and it's hot! Sorry...take responsibility for being too dumb to put it in a safe place!

I could go on......want me too? Probably not. Can't wait for my next jury summons....if you are a trail lawyer trying to bilk a company, family or individual out of more $$$$$ than you deserve...watch out...you darn sure do not want me on your jury! YOU LOSE! If you see me...ask for reasonable and certifiable damages...I'll listen and I'll be open to the evidence.....'Nuf said! And, have a good day!

Smitty · October 24, 2007

lawyers could get down to the real "lawyering" that needs to be done.

I'm going to regret asking this, but what "real lawyering" needs to be done?

The idea that a guy making $6.00/hr. should get say...$200,000,000 in punitive and "pain and suffering" damages is pure insanity. There should be some sort of adequate compensation in damage awards...say for medical expenses (real ones...not the mental kind because someones feelings were hurt), lost wages and actual damage to property, etc.

Compensation for pain and suffering is not punitive damages. Pain and suffering, mental anguish, medical expenses, loss wages, lost earning capacity, etc. are damages. Punitive damages are used by a jury that feels a defendant needs to be punished, to make sure they don't do it again and to warn others.

If you drink too much you get drunk and your judgement is impaired...don't drive and don't storm your neighbors back door...something bad might happen...if so...it's your fault. Don't blame the bar of the beer company...too much booze...BAD...we all know that...don't do it or take responsibility if you do!

It's not the drunk driver who sues the bar, it's the person the drunk hits - or the family of the person the drunk driver killed - who sue the bar.

KRAM1 · October 24, 2007

Smitty, I knew I'd be in for a "rebuttal" on some of that last rant. I know the difference of which you speak but was "on a roll" and just couldn't stop. Good question. Just what is "real lawyering". Well, that would be getting "bad guys" put in jail where they belong, fighting off the idiot lawyers who make up the ACLU when they want to stop a kid from saying the Pledge or taking a "moment of silence" in school, real estate attorneys closing property sales for willing buyers and sellers, negotiating contracts between willing parties, and on and on and on. There is so much "good stuff" that lawyers need to be doing that this other "stuff" for the "love of nothing but money, and unreasonable amounts of money, should simply go away. The end result of all this is that it drives the cost of goods and services that everyone pays through the roof, and becomes a real burden for those less able to pay for essential goods and services. But, I digress. Amazing how folks think that the "insurance companies", big corporations, and businesses of all sizes are the ones paying the freight for all this "stuff". Man, what world do they live in??? It gets passed along to the "avergae joe" just trying to earn a living, support his/her family and trying to keep his nose clean.

Shall I go on?

P.S. There is lots more "good lawyering" going on than "bad", but the "bad" gets all the press and causes all the "pain and suffering" for all us "average joes" out there.

Censored by Laurie · October 25, 2007

Hmmm...not sure where the mention of the ACLU fits into your argument since the majority of their work is done pro bono, focus on first ammendment rights and rarely have any sort of financial reward tied to their settlements. I agree with the majority of your sentiment that there needs to be some sort of personal responsibility...but felt the ACLU attack was rather unwarrented

KRAM1 · October 25, 2007

The ACLU is a symbol of just about everything wrong with the legal profession. You are correct regarding their pro bono status and lack of suits resulting in "damage and/or pain and suffereing awards", but they seem to only take cases from the "left side of the argument". Let some yahoo have an issue with a kid who wants to pass out candy canes at school and they are all over it, let someone have a problem with someone saying "Merry Christmas" and they are all over it, let some killer want a certain TV show in prison and they are all over it, let someone want to sue the government...federal, state or local...and they are all over it, let someone want to burn the American Flag or take "God" out of the Pledge and they are all over it. It seems to me that the ACLU is simply the "unpaid" arm of all the Michael Moore types. A little "fair and balanced" legal work would help me, and others like me, believe that the ACLU was really in the job of protecting "civil liberties". If I am a killer then, yep, they are all for my "civil liberties"...jump right up there and defend those rights.....

O.K., folks, how long should this thread go on? To me, the ACLU needs to think about "both sides of the issues". I am sure they have defended the rights of law abiding citizens and conservative causes from time to time, and anyone out there who loves the ACLU as much as I don't can probably point me to several conservative issues they championed, but, for me, the scales are heavily weighted in favor of the "bad guys" when it comes to the ACLU. If they went away today, the country would be far better off without them than with them. In my "never so humble" opinion that is...and that is what it is...my opinion. You are more than welcome to yours...hey, maybe the ACLU will defend my stand...opps...not a chance! :no:

Smitty · October 25, 2007

The ACLU is a symbol of just about everything wrong with the legal profession. You are correct regarding their pro bono status and lack of suits resulting in "damage and/or pain and suffereing awards", but they seem to only take cases from the "left side of the argument". Let some yahoo have an issue with a kid who wants to pass out candy canes at school and they are all over it, let someone have a problem with someone saying "Merry Christmas" and they are all over it, let some killer want a certain TV show in prison and they are all over it, let someone want to sue the government...federal, state or local...and they are all over it, let someone want to burn the American Flag or take "God" out of the Pledge and they are all over it. It seems to me that the ACLU is simply the "unpaid" arm of all the Michael Moore types. A little "fair and balanced" legal work would help me, and others like me, believe that the ACLU was really in the job of protecting "civil liberties". If I am a killer then, yep, they are all for my "civil liberties"...jump right up there and defend those rights.....

ACLU Comes to Rush Limbaugh's Defense

By Catherine Donaldson-Evans

FOX NEWS

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — Talk radio host Rush Limbaugh probably never expected the American Civil Liberties Union to become one of his staunch supporters.

But the privacy rights group was on his side Monday when its Florida branch filed a "friend-of-court" motion on behalf of Limbaugh arguing state officials were wrong in seizing his medical records for their drug probe.

"For many people, it may seem odd that the ACLU has come to the defense of Rush Limbaugh," ACLU of Florida Executive Director Howard Simon said in a released statement.

"But we have always said that the ACLU's real client is the Bill of Rights, and we will continue to safeguard the values of equality, fairness and privacy for everyone, regardless of race, economic status or political point of view," Simon said.

The ACLU contends that state law enforcement officers violated Limbaugh's privacy rights by taking possession of his medical records as part of their criminal investigation into the commentator's alleged "doctor-shopping" to feed his prescription-drug addiction.

"While this case involves the right of Rush Limbaugh to maintain the privacy of his medical records, the precedent set in this case will impact the security of medical records and the privacy of the doctor-patient relationship of every person in Florida," Simon said in his statement.

The motion, filed with the Fourth District Court of Appeal, claims the state encroached upon the Florida constitution's right to privacy when law enforcement officials confiscated Limbaugh's medical files.

The ACLU said it was trying to "to vindicate every Floridian's fundamental right to privacy by ensuring that the state be required to comply" with the law.

O.K., folks, how long should this thread go on?

I don't know. How many more hyperbolic, knee-jerk comments do you plan to post?

meangreendork · October 25, 2007

The ACLU is a symbol of just about everything wrong with the legal profession. You are correct regarding their pro bono status and lack of suits resulting in "damage and/or pain and suffereing awards", but they seem to only take cases from the "left side of the argument". Let some yahoo have an issue with a kid who wants to pass out candy canes at school and they are all over it, let someone have a problem with someone saying "Merry Christmas" and they are all over it, let some killer want a certain TV show in prison and they are all over it, let someone want to sue the government...federal, state or local...and they are all over it, let someone want to burn the American Flag or take "God" out of the Pledge and they are all over it. It seems to me that the ACLU is simply the "unpaid" arm of all the Michael Moore types. A little "fair and balanced" legal work would help me, and others like me, believe that the ACLU was really in the job of protecting "civil liberties". If I am a killer then, yep, they are all for my "civil liberties"...jump right up there and defend those rights.....
O.K., folks, how long should this thread go on? To me, the ACLU needs to think about "both sides of the issues". I am sure they have defended the rights of law abiding citizens and conservative causes from time to time, and anyone out there who loves the ACLU as much as I don't can probably point me to several conservative issues they championed, but, for me, the scales are heavily weighted in favor of the "bad guys" when it comes to the ACLU. If they went away today, the country would be far better off without them than with them. In my "never so humble" opinion that is...and that is what it is...my opinion. You are more than welcome to yours...hey, maybe the ACLU will defend my stand...opps...not a chance!

Here's your list:

http://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/2...es20060824.html

There you go. Looks like it's a long list of ACLU cases protecting rights of Christians, so I'd say they've done a job of standing for "God".

Really, slow down on this ACLU business. It really doesn't have anything to do with the particular case that's originally the topic of discussion.

Censored by Laurie · October 25, 2007

The ACLU is a symbol of just about everything wrong with the legal profession. You are correct regarding their pro bono status and lack of suits resulting in "damage and/or pain and suffereing awards", but they seem to only take cases from the "left side of the argument". Let some yahoo have an issue with a kid who wants to pass out candy canes at school and they are all over it, let someone have a problem with someone saying "Merry Christmas" and they are all over it, let some killer want a certain TV show in prison and they are all over it, let someone want to sue the government...federal, state or local...and they are all over it, let someone want to burn the American Flag or take "God" out of the Pledge and they are all over it. It seems to me that the ACLU is simply the "unpaid" arm of all the Michael Moore types. A little "fair and balanced" legal work would help me, and others like me, believe that the ACLU was really in the job of protecting "civil liberties". If I am a killer then, yep, they are all for my "civil liberties"...jump right up there and defend those rights.....
O.K., folks, how long should this thread go on? To me, the ACLU needs to think about "both sides of the issues". I am sure they have defended the rights of law abiding citizens and conservative causes from time to time, and anyone out there who loves the ACLU as much as I don't can probably point me to several conservative issues they championed, but, for me, the scales are heavily weighted in favor of the "bad guys" when it comes to the ACLU. If they went away today, the country would be far better off without them than with them. In my "never so humble" opinion that is...and that is what it is...my opinion. You are more than welcome to yours...hey, maybe the ACLU will defend my stand...opps...not a chance!

Well realize that the ACLU is not a government funded organization...they work on annual membership dues, donations and grants from the interest groups they represent...and most of those donations happen to come from causes more traditionally championed by the left (gay rights, environmental concerns, religious boundries ect.)...and often they don't have access to the herds of lawyers that big business or the christian church do...its an attempt to level the playing field. As for atleast one of your examples...lets not forget "God" was not referenced in the original pledge (one nation, indivisible) and if an atheist child is being forced to say something against their religious beliefs, thats a civil liberty issue. I don't blindly support everything the ACLU does, but there is a greater good to their work and they really have no obligation to be "fair and balanced."

KRAM1 · October 26, 2007

Yes, and that why they are a bunch of clods! you got me on the Rush thing....Gee, let's see...one defense of a "conservative" or "conservative issue"...1000 defenses on the left. Yep, my idea of "fair and balanced". No "atheist child" is or was being forced to say anything...they could just keep quiet. But, even that is not good enough for your friends at the ACLU. Hmmmmmmmmmm...one or two "atheist children" and the rest of the class get "run under the bus" for wanting to have a moment of silence or say the pledge? Yep, great solution. <_<

Anyway, let's make sure we don't offend anyone or hurt anyon'e feelings here. Time to end this thread. It was fun while it lasted. That's why I love these boards. Everyone get's "their day in court". Thanks for all the input...very interesting. Now, back to the real issues of the day, and the important ones at that. GO MEAN GREEN...BEAT MIDDLE TENNESSEE! :lol:

UNTLifer · October 26, 2007

Some days I look back and wonder:

"Why in the world did you start that thread!"

KRAM1 · October 26, 2007

At this point, I agree with you...long past its shelf life. Let's move on to something positive and fun...LIKE UNT SPORTS. Go Mean Green.

It was fun, however, while it lasted. :blowup: But...time to go!

UNTflyer · October 26, 2007

The ACLU takes on all kinds of cases to defend civil rights and do a hell of a lot of good... But the cases where they defend a pedophile's "right" to look at kiddie porn, or a Muslim's "right" to pray loudly on an airplane, or they sue a small town that dares put a nativity scene on public property.... that's where they get their reputation of being sleazy, especially among conservatives.

Edited October 26, 2007 by UNTflyer