2
   

It's kerry and Edwards

 
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2004 09:50 am
sozobe wrote:
Plus I'll get to see the Edwards/ Cheney debate! Yay!!!
You have an excellent point there. I imagine Edwards will chew Cheney up in cross examination till hell won't have it.

Still though, the enormously well funded GOP will have little trouble painting him as a smooth talking, wealthy, ambulance chaser. The arguments will be Sleazebag Vs. Baby Saver and I predict it will get very ugly.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2004 09:50 am
Question
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2004 09:50 am
OCCOM BILL

I will take those odds.
0 Replies
 
JustanObserver
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2004 09:54 am
Hey, good for him. Hopefully they'll be able to derail the rollercoaster straight to hell that Bush has got us on.

The funniest thing is hearing talk radio dingbats CONSTANTLY harp on him being a "Trial lawyer", lol... "Oh no! a TRIAL LAWYER! The humanity!"
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2004 09:55 am
O'Bill, that's why I didn't want Edwards to be the Dem nominee for president -- but for VP, he'll get a lot more attention than the likes of Vilsack, and his reputation for positivity could stand him in good stead here. (Republicans try various smears, he smiles and stays positive.)

I think this could be a nice yin/ yang thing. Fingers crossed.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2004 09:55 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
sozobe wrote:
Plus I'll get to see the Edwards/ Cheney debate! Yay!!!
You have an excellent point there. I imagine Edwards will chew Cheney up in cross examination till hell won't have it.

Still though, the enormously well funded GOP will have little trouble painting him as a smooth talking, wealthy, ambulance chaser. The arguments will be Sleazebag Vs. Baby Saver and I predict it will get very ugly.


Baby Saver versus Baby Killer Bill.....let's get realistic.

Or they could find common ground.....neither man served their country during time of war......but then of course we weren't at war when Edwards would have been serving, unlike cheney.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2004 09:59 am
A successful trial lawyer..let's make a skills checklist for one

1. Must be able to consider all sides of an argument
and be prepared to intelligently rebutt either.

2. Strong research and organizational skills.

3. Eloquent and convincing speaker with high people skills.

4. Ability to destroy his opponents arguments while maintaining an air of civility and lack of ARROGANCE.

Yep, wouldn't want to consider a dickhead like that with the public trust......
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2004 10:17 am
au1929 I believe the wager limit is $500 on this type of bet. If that's not enough, I can provide you with more credible sites in addition to this one.

BPB, I said Baby Saver and I was referring to Edward's Championing the cause of Brain Damaged Children. Btw, where does ability to "channel dead babies" rank on your checklist? (he actually claimed this Shocked )

Upon looking further into it though, I can see both sides will be right. He got rich grabbing huge verdicts for a tiny percentage of the victim's families... But then spoke out against a bill that would "limit awards and create a fund to be shared by all families with similarly afflicted children".

Sorry Soz, he looks pretty sleazy to me. Read this.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2004 10:21 am
Right, I remember reading that at the time. Again, I have been steadily against him being the Prez nominee. But all that "I feel your pain" kinda stuff is a great yin to Kerry's yang, IMO.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2004 10:28 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
au1929 I believe the wager limit is $500 on this type of bet. If that's not enough, I can provide you with more credible sites in addition to this one.

BPB, I said Baby Saver and I was referring to Edward's Championing the cause of Brain Damaged Children. Btw, where does ability to "channel dead babies" rank on your checklist? (he actually claimed this Shocked )

Upon looking further into it though, I can see both sides will be right. He got rich grabbing huge verdicts for a tiny percentage of the victim's families... But then spoke out against a bill that would "limit awards and create a fund to be shared by all families with similarly afflicted children".


Sorry Soz, he looks pretty sleazy to me. Read this.


Bill perhaps if you were to speak to the family of the little girl whose intestines were literally sucked out of her ass as she swam in the pool, and please think HARD about that image, and the quality of her life and the grief of her parents, you would get a different perspective on these "ridiculously" large settlements than the one given by those who will attempt to use it against Edwards.. What besides money is there to give to this child or her parents
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2004 10:47 am
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
Bill perhaps if you were to speak to the family of the little girl whose intestines were literally sucked out of her ass as she swam in the pool, and please think HARD about that image, and the quality of her life and the grief of her parents, you would get a different perspective on these "ridiculously" large settlements than the one given by those who will attempt to use it against Edwards.. What besides money is there to give to this child or her parents

BPB, that is a very disturbing mental image and I don't appreciate you making me visualize it. I didn't say "ridiculously large settlements" and in fact voiced no opinion as to whether or not the families deserve them. I don't believe there exists a sum of money that could replace a baby. Your argument is ignoring the 99% of the families of ghastly victims like you described when in fact your hero spoke out against a bill that was designed to give them some relief as well. Don't get mad at me; I'm merely relaying the facts.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2004 10:56 am
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
Bill perhaps if you were to speak to the family of the little girl whose intestines were literally sucked out of her ass as she swam in the pool, and please think HARD about that image, and the quality of her life and the grief of her parents, you would get a different perspective on these "ridiculously" large settlements than the one given by those who will attempt to use it against Edwards.. What besides money is there to give to this child or her parents


There probably isn't anything but money to give to her parents and, IMO, they probably deserve the $25 million award. The question is did Edwards deserve to get 1/3rd of that award and then still make them pay all the legal fees and costs on top of it?
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2004 11:20 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Upon looking further into it though, I can see both sides will be right. He got rich grabbing huge verdicts for a tiny percentage of the victim's families... But then spoke out against a bill that would "limit awards and create a fund to be shared by all families with similarly afflicted children".

Your concern is indeed touching, O'BILL. I suppose, then, that you would also favor a bill that would limit a company's profits and create a fund to be shared by all the victims of that company's negligence.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2004 11:22 am
fishin' wrote:
The question is did Edwards deserve to get 1/3rd of that award and then still make them pay all the legal fees and costs on top of it?

What do you think is the answer to that question, fishin'?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2004 11:27 am
Feh. Most lawyers merely go through life justifying their own existence.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2004 11:32 am
McGentrix wrote:
Feh. Most lawyers merely go through life justifying their own existence.


and you know this because?
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2004 11:34 am
fishin' wrote:
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
Bill perhaps if you were to speak to the family of the little girl whose intestines were literally sucked out of her ass as she swam in the pool, and please think HARD about that image, and the quality of her life and the grief of her parents, you would get a different perspective on these "ridiculously" large settlements than the one given by those who will attempt to use it against Edwards.. What besides money is there to give to this child or her parents


There probably isn't anything but money to give to her parents and, IMO, they probably deserve the $25 million award. The question is did Edwards deserve to get 1/3rd of that award and then still make them pay all the legal fees and costs on top of it?


Maybe they should have shopped it out to someone cheaper.....I'm sure I'd be looking for the Wal Mart deal......he charged what he charged, the family obvvioulsy had to agree to it ahead of time, and they walked away with millions which we agree was deserved........I think we can all agree they received mucho value for dollar......what's the beef?
0 Replies
 
Jer
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2004 11:37 am
bm
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2004 11:37 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
Bill perhaps if you were to speak to the family of the little girl whose intestines were literally sucked out of her ass as she swam in the pool, and please think HARD about that image, and the quality of her life and the grief of her parents, you would get a different perspective on these "ridiculously" large settlements than the one given by those who will attempt to use it against Edwards.. What besides money is there to give to this child or her parents

BPB, that is a very disturbing mental image and I don't appreciate you making me visualize it. I didn't say "ridiculously large settlements" and in fact voiced no opinion as to whether or not the families deserve them. I don't believe there exists a sum of money that could replace a baby. Your argument is ignoring the 99% of the families of ghastly victims like you described when in fact your hero spoke out against a bill that was designed to give them some relief as well. Don't get mad at me; I'm merely relaying the facts.


not mad at you at all Bill....I think, however, everyone should have to see a disturbing image of what can happen when they don't do their best....I know you didn't say ridiculously large settlements I'm referring to the fact that his detractors will trot that out as part of their campaign to smear Edwards......now give me big wet kiss now that your breath is finally fresh.....
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2004 11:47 am
joefromchicago wrote:
Your concern is indeed touching, O'BILL.
Which concern would you be referencing Joe?

joefromchicago wrote:
I suppose, then, that you would also favor a bill that would limit a company's profits and create a fund to be shared by all the victims of that company's negligence.
That's a little too general to let you feed on, Joe. I doubt it, but I would need to hear a little more detail about the company in question (if indeed, you don't mean industry), before I could answer. For instance; are we talking about a company where a percentage of their clients are going to be killed regardless?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/18/2021 at 05:31:35