How about the rapists? Why haven't the rapists been delt with? KBR's connections with your fellow travelers Bush/Cheney/Boehner?

You remain oblivious to the fact that tort reform warriors are shills for health insurers who use doctors as their pawns in a profits game.

You remain oblivious to the demonstrated fact that KBR bound their employees to arbitration instead of civil court proceedings, thus necessitating Franken's amendment.

Because you remain oblivious to these facts, you feel justified in labeling me a "scumbag" for pointing out that obliviousness.

Wrong. I already shot this bit of illogic down. Tort reform benefits doctors, and patients, by lowering health care costs.

Rev says, "Limiting punitive damages so insurance corporations can simply budget for doctors crippling and killing patients….I don't know…..seems barbaric and inhumane to me."

Yes, because everybody knows doctors raison d'etre is to cripple and kill patients. It's not like doctors exist to help people and save lives. Doctors are satan. Such reasonable arguments the Reverend makes.

Rev says, "By the way….I think it's shameless to argue against the rights of a gang-rape victim to have her day in court. That, in effect, is what you are arguing."

If you were directing this at me – like hell I am, scumbag. What I'm saying is, someone who was gang-raped WILL get their day in court. No piece of paper will stop that. A crime is a crime.

http://images-partners.google.com/images?q=tbn:T3hbmKXHUifiAM:

I guess wearing a diaper to go see the prostitute makes you truly a famliy values republican

Tort reform is for whose benefit? Say it……corporations.

Limiting punitive damages so insurance corporations can simply budget for doctors crippling and killing patients….I don't know…..seems barbaric and inhumane to me.

Also….in the case of the gang-rape, as it stood…..without Franken's amendment, the rapee was bound to arbitrate her gang-rape punitive damages, an arbitration KBR had total control of. So, I don't need a lesson on what tort reform would or wouldn't do.

By the way….I think it's shameless to argue against the rights of a gang-rape victim to have her day in court. That, in effect, is what you are arguing.

larry…."You're moving the goal posts, Reverend. Why don't you just wave the white flag or apologize for fibbing or something."

My bowels moved this morning…..but "goal posts"? No. You said "no one promotes" against the right to sue. That is incorrect….and I mean glaringly. Thirty GOP'ers "promoted" the idea that victims should not have the right to sue in court. They did this by voting against Franken's amendment mandating the cessation of funding for government contractors who bind their employees over to arbitration and restricts their employees from sueing.