Philosophy Now Forum

bobevenson wrote:... Unfortunately, this has never crossed Arising's mind.

People on this forum routinely ask you questions bobby but you invariably just ignore the question and trot out your pat phrases if not just resort to insult sbd all in a shouty voice. Your clock is ticking bobby boy. Time to straighten right out.

Arising_uk wrote:

bobevenson wrote:... Unfortunately, this has never crossed Arising's mind.

People on this forum routinely ask you questions bobby but you invariably just ignore the question and trot out your pat phrases if not just resort to insult sbd all in a shouty voice. Your clock is ticking bobby boy. Time to straighten right out.

"Your clock is ticking." Jesus Christ, you sound like the mafia, but we all know you're just a fucking dweeb! You have never asked a serious question related to any subject or made a serious comment yet, just insults!

No bob,
You are deluded, as when you joined I read your stuff and asked you questions about what I didn't understand and what the point of it all was. All I got back from you was evasion and insult and in the years that have followed you have pretty much done the same to everyone else who attempted to understand what you say. I have no idea why you are on a philosophy forum as you learn nothing from the responses of others and the point of philosophy is to listen to what others say about your thoughts if the intent is to try and communicate them, not necessarily to change them you'll note but to learn how to communicate them effectively. Since your behaviour is the exact opposite of this I'll have to guess that you are here for some other psychological reason and that you have nowhere else to go as you've been banned from everywhere else.

bobevenson wrote:There will be no judicial expenses of any kind paid by defendants or litigants under the AEP for either criminal or civil cases, and all attorneys will be hired and paid for by the government through private agencies. Furthermore, there will be a balanced presentation of the facts to a professional jury composed of people well-qualified to render a fair and proper decision. My God, don't you wish the AEP were in charge of things now?

As if the USA was not already too litigious?

What's to stop anyone from bring a case against who they like, when they like, with as much frequency they like.
Every time you don't like a burger you could claim against the place you bought it.
The courts would be back-up for decades, and the government would be broke trying to keep up with the demand.

Ansiktsburk wrote:What is AEP, google wasnt very helpful

There is no such thing.

It is a political party of ONE member. Guess who?

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

bobevenson wrote:There will be no judicial expenses of any kind paid by defendants or litigants under the AEP for either criminal or civil cases, and all attorneys will be hired and paid for by the government through private agencies. Furthermore, there will be a balanced presentation of the facts to a professional jury composed of people well-qualified to render a fair and proper decision. My God, don't you wish the AEP were in charge of things now?

What's to stop anyone from bring a case against who they like, when they like, with as much frequency they like.
Every time you don't like a burger you could claim against the place you bought it.
The courts would be back-up for decades, and the government would be broke trying to keep up with the demand.

No, my friend, all potential cases are screened, and frivolous cases are rejected at the onset. The bottom line is that "justice" can't be bought regardless of who you are or how much money you have.

bobevenson wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

bobevenson wrote:There will be no judicial expenses of any kind paid by defendants or litigants under the AEP for either criminal or civil cases, and all attorneys will be hired and paid for by the government through private agencies. Furthermore, there will be a balanced presentation of the facts to a professional jury composed of people well-qualified to render a fair and proper decision. My God, don't you wish the AEP were in charge of things now?

What's to stop anyone from bring a case against who they like, when they like, with as much frequency they like.
Every time you don't like a burger you could claim against the place you bought it.
The courts would be back-up for decades, and the government would be broke trying to keep up with the demand.

No, my friend, all potential cases are screened, and frivolous cases are rejected at the onset. The bottom line is that "justice" can't be bought regardless of who you are or how much money you have.

The screening alone would cost the earth.
There would be no incentive for lawyers to reject any cases.
The bottom line is a blank check

Hobbes' Choice wrote:The screening alone would cost the earth. There would be no incentive for lawyers to reject any cases. The bottom line is a blank check

The screening process would be relatively inexpensive. Attorneys don't accept or reject cases. They are merely hired hands who do the bidding of the agency screening potential legal cases.

bobevenson wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:The screening alone would cost the earth. There would be no incentive for lawyers to reject any cases. The bottom line is a blank check

The screening process would be relatively inexpensive. Attorneys don't accept or reject cases. They are merely hired hands who do the bidding of the agency screening potential legal cases.

"mere hired hands" don't have the experience or discrimination to assess the cases. Do these faceless bureaucrats have scrutiny. Is ther any appeal to their decisions? How big is your bureaucracy going to be?

You are an idiot. How many times do people have to tell you that before you work it out.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

bobevenson wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:The screening alone would cost the earth. There would be no incentive for lawyers to reject any cases. The bottom line is a blank check

The screening process would be relatively inexpensive. Attorneys don't accept or reject cases. They are merely hired hands who do the bidding of the agency screening potential legal cases.

"mere hired hands" don't have the experience or discrimination to assess the cases. Do these faceless bureaucrats have scrutiny. Is ther any appeal to their decisions? How big is your bureaucracy going to be?

You are an idiot. How many times do people have to tell you that before you work it out.

There are no bureaucrats, only private companies hired to evaluate potential criminal or civil cases. If they don't do a good job, they are replaced.

bobevenson wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

bobevenson wrote: The screening process would be relatively inexpensive. Attorneys don't accept or reject cases. They are merely hired hands who do the bidding of the agency screening potential legal cases.

"mere hired hands" don't have the experience or discrimination to assess the cases. Do these faceless bureaucrats have scrutiny. Is ther any appeal to their decisions? How big is your bureaucracy going to be?

You are an idiot. How many times do people have to tell you that before you work it out.

There are no bureaucrats, only private companies hired to evaluate potential criminal or civil cases. If they don't do a good job, they are replaced.

You have a problem with infinite regress here. You have unqualified people scrutinising case, and owned by private business. Then presumably you have another tier of bureaucrats scrutinising the scrutineers- those also presumably private businesses.
Who are they accountable to?
It looks like the Gummint are going to have to increase taxation with all these clueless morons writing themselves blank checks.

bobevenson wrote:I'm sorry, but you simply don't understand the program, and I just don't feel like wasting my time trying to make you understand since you have such a negative outlook.

okay here it is.

I am a homeowner and my neighbour has broken down my fence. We don't get on and feel I need to get legal restitution for the damage.
What do I do next in your scheme?
Who do I speak to?
How is that person qualified?
Who decides if my case is trivial or valid?