E4 No More

Now the P-51 is something I'd REALLY love to see up close and personal. I have always loved that plane. If I were to win the lottery probably the only extravagant thing I'd do is to buy/restore a P-51 and learn to fly it.

Well, unfortunately my "wingman" backed out of going to the airshow so I guess I'll watch it from my house. I guess I wait for two years when the Blue Angels come back to see it up close and personal.

I'm not that close. I live in Lake Forrest. In my 50 years I've never gone to an air show, but I think I just may go for the experience of being up close.

They didn't line up over my house as often as the Blue Angels did two years ago. I live directly in the path of the runway that they use for the show, and the Blue Angels would circle out around Percy Prist Lake and fly directly over my house so low that I could "count the rivets" as they passed. Still, I got several passes. I just wish that I had a camera and a photographer that could keep up with them. I hope to get more pictures this weekend.

Smyrna Airshow warm-up.

Umm, a car with gasoline is useless???

No, it's not the best that I have. Forum rules and all.

I was not suggesting that you quit your job like, (if my memory serves me correctly), you have so condescendingly stated to others on this forum: however, I do find your posting of the George Washinton quote to be a bit hypocritical since I do not agree that property rights of a public business inherently trumps the personal right to live as you appear to do. Opinions? Yes, but opionions are like butt-holes: everyone has one and they all stink - which is a fact that I am frequently reminded of when I read many of your posts.

You might want to re-think using the George Washington quote in your signature line then. The word "any" would include an employer, and dying because your employer disarms you is certainly abuse and losing your independence. JMHO

So why not change the bill to prohibit searches of privately owned vehicles? Seems like a simple fix to me.

Agreed: however, then you'd see a lot of padding going on there. I understand actual vs punitive damages as well, so there's no confusion there for me. I also know about being the victim of a frivolous lawsuit - having been sued as a police officer even though it was proven to be a total lie by bystanders. The insurance company paid that clown and his lawyer $10,000 anyways. As for the couple is concerned, the reports I saw was that the NES was capped at $100,000 period by law. That's why it was "news worthy" because the couples' damages far exceeded the cap. I even recall the state contemplating raising the cap after the fact in this case to cover the actual damages. I could be wrong; it was several years ago.

So lawsuits would only be for the rich? Lawyers are just like anyone else. They chase money. What I would like to see is us go back to not allowing lawyers to advertise. It seems like we became a litigious society after lawyers were allowed to advertise.

Doh!!!

Yet it has happened neverhteless.

Heck! I had the Blue Angels fly over my house lower than that when they did the Smyrna air show.

I agree that medical malpractice is where most of the abuse is found. A woman smokes and drinks through her pregnancy and turns around to score a big lawsuit against the OB/Gyn because her child comes out deformed? That's crap! But then again, there are cases where doctors need to be driven out of business for the crap that they pull.

Agreed.

So you believe they should be capped, but you propose no answer as to how? I agree that someone shouldn't make $5,000,000 off of a cup of McDonald's coffee dumped in their lap: however, a person shouldn't be neared burned to death while their wife is burned to death and not even have their hospital bills paid. THAT is BS!!

Sure, there are many excesses: however, as in the instance of the couple who got electrocuted just walking down the street in Nashville, would $100,000 legal cap that NES enjoys compensate you for losing your spouse and living your life in pain and disfigurement from severe burns? Just the guy's hospital bills exceeded $1,000,000 if I recall correctly. I also question Haslam's motives considering he's a business owner.

So the Governor is wanting to protect businesses from what he considers excessive punitive damages. I agree that tort reform is needed, but the problem is too complicated for his simplistic solution that he proposed. After seeing the initial report I fired off the following email to the governor and my senator and representative. The very next day Haslam proposed a compromise, but it's still too simplistic. What're your opinions?? My email: In reference to this article: http://www.wsmv.com/news/27300050/detail.html As your constituent who votes Republican, I want to state to you three that I am against the idea of limiting liability for businesses where negligence is involved even under the pretense of “job creation.” Who are you to say what a person’s life, (or even their way of life), is worth? Can you set a definitive dollar amount on the life of your mother, father, wife, or child? Are the office worker’s legs worth the same as an electrical line worker’s? Is the arm of a radio announcer worth the same as that of a mechanic? I say you can’t because the loss of life and limb is as subjective as it can be, and there’s no way legislators can determine that. Let’s see how this type of thinking works. I recall an incident not too long ago in downtown Nashville where a couple was fried as the result of a bursting electric transformer at ground level, and NES was protected from damages to not exceed $100,000. Would that amount compensate you for living the rest of your life in pain and disfigurement? I dare say it wouldn’t, but if it does then step-up and set the example. And did the comfort of knowing the limit of their liability create an environment of complacency within the NES so that they didn’t feel the need to inspect or maintain that transformer as they should, or perhaps purchase enough land to maintain a safe distance from it in the event of a failure? The very nature of business is to drive profits which usually translates into doing the bare minimum in the areas that do not generate revenue, so I’d conclude that it most certainly did affect their choices. I have to tell you, my only problem with the Republican side of politics is that they tend to act like the preamble to The Constitution of The United States reads, “We the corporations of The United State of America…”. May I remind you that your first responsibility is to protect your citizens; not businesses. This state already allows businesses to circumvent anti-discrimination laws with your “At Will” laws. This state already protects businesses from liability with workers compensation limits. This state already allows businesses to strip their employees of their most basic right of self-defense even while traveling to and from work. Businesses do not need any further protection; the citizens of this state need it. Besides, isn’t it the Republicans that repeatedly state that government can’t create jobs? I sincerely hope that the three of you, and the legislature, think this through before proceeding with it.

You are driving it in a manner that is not intended, I guess. Perhaps exceeding the posted speed limit is considered abusive treatment? High RPM read-outs could certainly be considered excessive. In the 70's I thought it was odd for Ford to sell my brother-in-law a tricked-out 4x4 Bronco that was obviously set up to go off-road, but taking it off-road voided its warranty. With Onstar they could also tell if you went off road.

I've found that telling them I am/was a cop got me removed from the jury pool quickly.

Actually, there was a story awhile back saying GM uses it to track and record your speed so that they can use the data to void your warranty.

How would you like the whole world to know that you screamed like a little girl?