Mason Rountree
-
Content Count
784 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by Mason Rountree
-
-
OK if you say so....but mine is not a "preconceived notion of lawyerdom" it is a conceived FACT...just look at the number of them in Congress and the Legislature and ask yourself why we have the problems we have...Look at the number of them that have our entire judicial system almost locked down...oh heck I could go on and on and on but I will stop for now....
Ken Ball
I know I'm one of your friends, and you one of mine. But Ken, come on.
Question: what percentage of legislators in the Georgia General Assembly are lawyers???
-
Now that's funny!But what do you expect you work for lawyers...anybody in that environment would find it "numbing" cause you never know which way they will try and ride the tide or which way they will fall off the fence
Good Luck on finding something that is "challenging" and you should prob consider a good Therapist to "brainwash" you so you can survive in the real world of people and business vs. (liberal) lawyers
As Ronald Reagan once said, "there you go again". I know it may not seem to some that attorneys live in the real world, and even I'm occasionally labeled a liberal, I can tell you that when my client found out today that the false charges against him had been dropped, nothing more real could have occurred to him, nor could I have been more satisfied with my occupation.
BTW: just a reminder as to a few of my fellow barristers who had a minor impact on the freedoms we enjoy today (although I readily admit I'm not worthy to shine their shoes): Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton, George Wythe, Lincoln. All of them were given pejorative names and considered liberals of their time, but certain rights, like the right to a trial by jury or the right to be considered a person rather than a chattle, was more important to them than labels.
Leslie: have you asked your bosses for more challenging work, which may carry more responsibility, even if it doesn't mean more pay in the short run?
-
Mason, in your example, what would it take to be considered the "winner?"
The threshhold is 125% of the offer of judgment by the insurance company. In my hypothetical, therefore, a jury must award more than $12,500.00 for the injured party to avoid being held liable for the fees of the insurance company's defense lawyers.
-
Simple....our society has become sue happy. It is not uncommon for judgements to be millions upon millions of dollars. Malpractice insurance covers this and the rates go higher and higher each year....add that on to an already expensive business and this is what you get. We brought it on ourselves.
Not true. In 2004, the number of million dollar judgments for medical malpractice cases in the entire state of Georgia was less than 15. Personally, I have never had such a judgment and can assure you such judgments are not "common".
But, if a doctor negligently fails to diagnose cancer in a 21-year old patient, a million dollars does not seem outrageous. Fortunately, such occurences are extremely rare.
-
We need tort reform and have these greedy, crooked fools pay for the whole cost of both sides if they lose.
Under our current "tort reform" passed in the last General Assembly, legitimate claims may be punished because of the myopia of those advocating such legislation.
Example: Assume you break your leg in a car accident because of a DUI driver. The insurance company offers you $10,000.00 to settle your claim. You decide to reject the offer and go to trial. Under the recently enacted tort reform legislation, if the jury awards, for instance, $12,000.00, which is MORE THAN the $10,000.00 offer from the insurance company, you are considered a loser and must pay the insurance company's defense attorneys for their costs, which will likely exceed $10,000.00.
In other words, you may win your case, achieve a higher judgment than the insurance company offers you, and receive absolutely NOTHING for your leigitimate injury. In fact, under this short-sighted legislation, you may have to pay out of your pocket for being injured after some idiot was drinking and driving.
This is not justice.
-
With the opening post mshutley asked for the unchurch to respond. Leogirl did respond regarding hypocrites. Look at the replies she/he received by her statement?
Tell me why would she go to church after those respones?
Good point, provol56.
-
Jesus was not an elitist. He was clear that all people are equal; for instance, that prostitutes were no better than his disciples. I think that Church can improve by recognizing the two great commandments: love God and be nice.
Condemning others to hell is not nice. Judgment is God's domain, not man's. When the Church assumes the role of both prosecutor and judge, it usurps its design to be a sanctuary for believers who gather in His name. Welcoming, not condemning, should be the focus of the church. Doing good works instead of threatening non-believers or challenging the salvation of other self-proclaimed believers who happen to think differently than them is the most effective form of evangelism.
God manifests Himself to people in different ways. Some may want to be told that they are evil and going to Hell unless they follow stringent rules for their everyday lif. But I think most people want a loving, understanding and nurturing sanctuary, which best exemplifies the 2nd greatest commandment: to be nice. I think that the methods of some churches wrongly imply that Jesus was an elitist, because they assume that the lack of their concept of perfection is justification for condemnation of others.
-
that statement has to many answers. who said to stay in an abussive HOME? as far as the "relationship" goes, it's the way you sever that relationship that is important here.
you say it's a "moral" obligation to "divorce". but moral obligation to protect oneself and the children and moral obligation to divorce are different! they don't have to go hand in hand.
no one could fault someone for getting away from an abussive relationship.
it's what you do next, is the tricky thing.
but a case of divorce being sin or not? i am speaking biblically here.
and you said a "greater sin"? only man says that.
i am in reserve right now about the explanation i believe to be true concerning christians and divorce. as for unbelievers, unfortunatly they are condemned already, divorced or not. sorry.
When a father rapes their child or the mother of their child, the father has broken the marital bond consecrated by God and forfeited his right to force his wife to stay in the marriage. The two do go hand in hand, particularly where the husband/father is unrepentent.
When you state that you are speaking biblically, I assume that you define sin as falling short of the glory of God. One does not glorify God by staying in an unhealthy, abusive marital relationship. Sometimes, the only right and moral thing to do is to divorce. My God is a loving, forgiving, understanding God, not a vindictive one ready at any moment to condemn someone to hell or tattoe them with a Scarlett letter that effectively prohibits them under all circumstances from liberating themselves from an evil spouse. Children need a stable home, and the option of divorce and re-marriage may be the best way to achieve that stability.
And you are right, I am just a man. When I speak of "greater sin", it is no different than your post declaring that someone who divorces who divorces commits a "huge" sin as compared to other sins because of the impact on others.
-
I refuse to believe that it is a greater sin to get divorced than to stay in an abusive, damaging relationship, particularly where children are affected. In certain circumstances, it is a parent/spouse's moral obligation to divorce.
-
A divorce for some people can be as good as a good marriage.
You raise an interesting point, though. IMO, when God consecrates a marriage betwen a man and woman, the relationship should be everlasting. However, because of political decisions, there is now a "marriage" between the church and state.
Our society and government have used marriage to promote public policy, such as tax breaks for married couples, or to promote the stability of such an insitution. However, when government places its imprimatur on the sanctity of marriage, it likwise assumes the role of dissolving it. As a result, our fidelity to the institution of marriage is often channeled through government approval and disapproval rather than the Almighty who blessed it.
-
Will do.
-
let me say this one thing and i hope i make myself clear!
when i speak here about scripture, it is in either paraphrase, or in my own words (not changeing or taken out of context). i have studied long and hard for many years and if you think you know anything about the bible then search it yourself! this is why i don't try to quote word for word.yes i can explain your question, it's a very easy one! but i will not. all this does is get others, such as lestly and a few more, pounding the keys to twist, debate and pervert the precious word of god.
i can prove any, yes any thing i say or have ever said here on p.com with not one, not two, but many scriptures. but this one thing me nor anyone else can do is CONVINCE YOU!
your mind, like others are already made up and all you want is more information to to try and "PROVE A CHRISTIAN WRONG"!
prove to you yes, convince you, no!
so, unless i knew you were serious and opened minded, i will not play your "WHAT IF " games.
Amazing. Your refusal to answer a simple and honest question speaks volumes. I realize you do not know me, but I can assure you that you need do no convincing to me as to who my savior is. I was not asking for proof. I was asking for your opinion.
-
Tazman:
Where'd you go? Anyone...anyone (invoking the tone of Ferris Buehler's teacher).
-
I went back and looked throught the post and did not see any reference to Corithians. What reference are you speaking of?
I don't know how to cut and past from my prior post, but it is on page 4 of this thread, and the cite is 1 Corinthians 11:5-6, 10, regarding women covering their heads in church. My question is that if you literally believe Paul's writing in 1 Timothy prohibits women from certain roles in Church, do you likewise literally believe Paul's writing in Corinthians that women should cover their heads in Church?
If not, why not?
-
Are you running again in November?
Given my heretical post, I think it's safe to assume that the likelihood is very low.
-
Tazman, Righteous, Don, et al.:
Can one of you reconcile your beliefs as to the passage in Timothy regarding a woman's role in the Church with the Corinthians passage, as posted previously? I am sincerely curious.
-
For those literally taking the passage in Timothy as justification to deny women certain roles in the Church, do the women in your church likewise cover their heads when in Church, as Paul required in 1 Corinthians 11:5-6, 10?
And what about that other passage in 1 Timothy 5:23 where Paul says: "Do not drink water only, but take a little wine to help your digestion, since you are sick so often."
The Bible, for me, is the inspired word of God, but must be taken in context with the times when the various books were written. The passage denying women certain roles in the Church may have been Paul's thoughts then, but I don't think they represent God's thoughts today.
-
In this case, I do not see it as a hate crime. The burglary is being committed out of the assumption that this rich person will have alot of money that the robber can then - in his mind - make his, to somehow better his situation. He was not brought up to hate rich people as a group of people.
I do think that punishments should be added if it is the case of a hate crime, I just don't think more legislation than is in place is needed.
I hope you can recognize that there is as much hate and jealousy toward a person based on their wealth or status as there is racism. Our progressive tax system is based on similar motivations. It's not a stretch to say that much of leadership of the dem party share in that belief.
-
Again, I feel that hate crimes are not targeted because they are quick money, they are targeted specifically out of the persons hate for a particular type of people. If you have someone out to commit a "hate crime" they could walk down the street and kill just for the sake of killing because the person has black or white skin, is a male dressed in female clothing etc. They are not killing or robbing because they are trying to get money, just for the sake of the skin color, etc.
As I stated earlier - do I think they need more legislation - NO. I think that current laws and punishments need to be enforced. However, do I think that there is such a thing as hate crimes - Yes.
I don't believe the issue is whether people think that some criminals are motivated by racism, sexism. All rational people would agree that the idiot who killed innocent people in a gay bar was clearly motivated by hatred or an unjustified fear of gays. The question, though, is whether there should be enhanced sentences for offenses where the motivation is based on the government's definition of hate. In reading your post, it appears that you oppose hate crime legislation to enhance penalties, but want society to recognize (presumably not through penal legislation) that certain crimes are motivated by certain prejudices with the intent of altering someone's thought process. While I may not agree with the means you apparently propose, I would agree with the ends of such an effort.
I still do not understand your post as to the definition of hate crime. If a criminal targets someone for a burglary because he is jealous of the victim's wealth and success, wouldn't that be a hate crime too? That hypothetical simply doesn't fit itno the agenda of proponents of hate crime legislation.
-
The difference is is that "hate crimes" are not random crimes. Someone who hates blacks or gays and goes out with the intention to harm someone is not going to randomly come across a white heterosexual and try to kill them.
However, I also feel that when someone is targeted because of someones ignorant views on the world -out of their HATE for that type of person, a hate that their parents, peers whomever has instilled in them - It is even worse.
How do you distinguish between your post and a situation where a thief targets a woman in a parking lot driving a Lexus because he thinks she will have money? The thief is targeting someone because of their biased views. Wouldn't this also constitute a hate crime, because the criminal is targeting the rich?
Or what about a druggie who targets a drug dealer because he knows the drug dealer has "the goods". Wouldn't this be a hate crime too?
Or a bank robber who targets a particular bank, both because there is likely money there and the security is vulnerable? (Sounds like a certain Hiram bank that's been robbed multiple times).
The examples are endless and, to me, only lead to the conclusion that hate crime legislation may be good politics to some, but it defies common sense while simultaneously justifying control over one's thoughts rather than their behavior. While I have yet to hear a legitimate advocate for criminalizing someone's ignorant thoughts, wouldn't that be the logical extension of the supposed wisdom of hate crime legislation?
-
We don't have "thought" police but we have LEOs that discern motive and they are darn good at it... not perfect... but who is.
Bottom line...
We have laws against "Hate" crimes because some people need them.
Hate crime legislation is, essentially, thought control. According to proponents of hate crime legislation, the crime of aggravated assault or even muder is more heinous if the perpretrator committed the act based on racism. Accordingly, those crimes deserve the hightest level of punishment.
Such an approach penalizes a perpetrator more seriously because of his or her thought process rather than his or her actions. In essence, therefore, the approach is intended to alter someone's feelings and attitudes. In our country, we pride ourselves on diversity of thought and, however repugnant the thoughts may be, constitutionally respect the opinions of others, even if they are racist, sexist or ignorant. Who gets to define what "hate" is for purposes of such legislation? It's like trying to define pornography, or restricting someone's freedom of speech.
I think such legislation is misguided because it de-emphasizes the crime of aggravated assault or murder if someone committed the crime for reasons that some legislators deemed did not derive from hatred. Marginalizing a crime because it was not based on the government's definition of "hate", as hate legislation inevitably does, is an insult to the victims of such crimes.
Some people have ignorant views that need to be exposed in the marketplace of ideas so that they can be invalidated. Suppressing those views through legislation violates sacred values our country enjoys. But that doesn't mean that we should criminalize or deny their right to express those views, even if it is widely recognized that they are wrong.
-
We actually have an appoiintment with one next Monday.
Her name is Georgia Smith and the number is(770)592-0150.
I have not even called to get directions yet, but I hope this helps!
And they DO accept Peachcare also
Dr. Smith is not a psychiatrist. Child psychiatrists are uncommon. I would suggest that you call Highland-Rivers for a referral. It has at least one child psychiatrist who covers an 8 or 9-county area, including Paulding. If you don't have any luck, PM me. I'm a PK (psychiatrist's kid).
-
If the subpoena was properly served and it is a continuing subpoena (meaning that it applies to subsequent notices of court dates) and your friend was properly paid the witness ($25) and mileage fees (around 30 cents per mile from their home to courthouse) (NOTE: there are some exceptions to these required fees, such as for certain criminal cases, if the government issued subpeona, etc.), then they could be held in contempt of court for failing to comply with the subpeona. If the subpoena was proper, the only other avenue is to contact the Court regarding the situation and see if a continuance could be granted so as not to violate the court order. As an alternative, the attorneys could take a videotape deposition in liue of live testimony at trial.
-
Liberalism and conservatism are simply labels that carry different meanings to different people. It is easy to give someone such a label, because we generally use labels in our everyday life. Just as liberalism is a pejorative term in the South, conservatism is a pejorative term in California or Vermont.
Our founding fathers considered themselves liberals, because of their belief in liberty from a tyrannical, monarchical government in Great Britain. As someone else in this thread pointed out, many of our more recognized founding fathers were not Christian, although they almost universally acknowledged that our unalienable rights were created by God. Many were deists, who rejected the intercouse between the monarchy and the Church of England. Because of this close relationship, many founding fathers were therefore skeptical of Christianity. George Washington was a clear exception to the general rule, as he was a devout Christian.
During the formation of our country, our founding fathers engaged in heated debate over similar issues we still debate today. In the 1790's, the debate was over the role of the federal government and whether 1776 was the conception, which was the embodiment of liberty, or whether 1787 was the conception, which was when the Consitution and our ordered government was adopted. Jefferson and Madison were Republicans who were highly skeptical of a centralized federal goverment after the Constition was adopted, while Washington, Adams and Hamilton were Federalists who favored more centralized federal government. They called eachother bad names, with both sides alleging that the other side's position threatened the union. Ultimately, the Federalists prevailed, although the debate still rages today.
Today, although I do consider myself a conservative in modern language, the real issue is not liberal v. conservative, but statism v. anti-statism. As a whole, liberals tend to adopt a more statist view than conservatives, by which the government, especially the federal government, should be responsible for society. Conservatives tend to believe that government should not be responsible for society. These are generalizations, of course, with many exceptions.
The beauty of our republican form of government is that, while there is little organization among "moderates", conservatives and liberals must compromise in order to govern, thus establishing a moderate form of government.
I'm beginning to hate my job
in Internet Cafe
Posted · Edited by Mason Rountree
All right, I'll answer the question. As of 2004, 15% of the members of the Georgia Legislature were lawyers. The problem, IMO, is the opposite of your diagnosis.
Edited to say I know you're kidding. You're a friend to me and many of those on this site. I'm laughing on my end too...and didn't take your nonsense seriously.
I did enough of that 2 years ago with a self-proclaimed chicken farmer. I still couldn't let you get away with it. 