Did you read the thread? Buying vs Not Buying. Govt. Buying. Rates. Affordability. Costs. All brought up in this thread.
you should probably get past this idea that neo-cons are not classical liberals or what you define as conservatives. the label game is useless. neo cos are stupid not because they have abandoned some set of values that you think are consistent (but are not) but simply because they favor stupid things. short answer to you question is no, i am not a conservative in any sense besides fiscal policy. but labels dont matter much do they? if i favor aggressive foreign policy like bush then that policy is not wrong because it is not what you consider to be "conservative". so make that your next project, understanding why nobody cares that you noticed that bush spends like a liberal.
But its always a subjective call. If a 62-year-old bricklayer loses an arm due to malpractice, He's losing three years worth of 50K salary plus his medical bills for his 20 year projected lifetime. But if a 25-year old surgeon loses an arm due to malpractice, he's losing four decades of 500K salary plus the medical expenses for 60 years of his projected lifetime. And judges have been reducing many of these over-inflated settlements. Its almost impossible to establish a single "cap" for malpractice settlements. Better to work towards eliminating the frivolous lawsuits and establishing fair formulas for determining settlement amounts for the true victims.
It's not hard to figure out who talks the talk. BTW RP will be in BR Friday. I'll buy you a plane ticket.
the point is, fella, that your allegation that modern republicans are not longer conservatives by your definition is kinda pointless. if sabanfan and i are for aggressive foreign policy, then the argument against that is not that we have abandoned conservative values, the argument to make it so show us why we are wrong. i know you point to blowback, and believe that resistance to terrorism causes terrorism. i suppose this is such a weak argument that you play the label game instead, the pretense being that a position is right provided that it is considered conservative by your definition of what conservatism was at some arbitrary point in time.
It's not a subjective call at all. Future earnings and lifecare plans are spelled out by economic experts. The lawyers adjust the parameters but the juries have objective numbers to decide upon when figuring out an award. The subjective part comes when it's time to award general damages such as pain and suffering and loss of consortium. Without tort reform the ceiling can be unlimited and that is what scares defendants into settling cases they should take to trial. Exemplary, or punitive, damages are also another area where jury abuse is rampant.
I have no issue with "reform" of the parameters used to determine awards. Just with arbitrary "caps" that don't allow judges and juries any flexibility in cases that are never equal.
