It's kerry and Edwards

BPB: No kisses for you!
And considering your powerful stance that everyone should have to view disturbing images, where is your concern for the 99% of all families of victims that Mr. Edwards voted to leave out in the cold?

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

BPB: No kisses for you!
And considering your powerful stance that everyone should have to view disturbing images, where is your concern for the 99% of all families of victims that Mr. Edwards voted to leave out in the cold?

He should see em........if he voted out of malice, or just plain uncaring.

0 Replies

Quote:

McGentrix wrote:
Feh. Most lawyers merely go through life justifying their own existence.

and you know this because?

Um, because he's alive?

Damn. I hate agreeing with McG..... :wink:

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Brand X
Are you kidding. You have been a$$-wiping Bush for months. Now you say you are undecided. HO HO Hee Hee who the hell will it be?

Hardly, but if you want to go dredging up old posts from a year or more ago I'm sure you will see that you and I both have changed our views of the current Admin. in many ways.

In recent months you have become much more vocal about your opposition to Bush, I am just as disappointed in him and overall very discouraged with the 'big two' parties.

I'm taking this election very seriously and at the same time try to keep things in perspective. I tried to support this Admin but that support has eroded away to next to nothing sans the war.

Back to the original topic, Edwards being on the ticket does not make me want to vote for Kerry where Clark or Lieberman may have.

0 Replies

Clark might've made a good choice, but not Lieberman. His campaign went nowhere; the wrong man at the wrong time. Well, neither did Clark's, but he's a fresh face with an interesting background...

0 Replies

I, too, like Clark, but I think Edward's geography and youthfulness may be helpful to Kerry. It's good to have someone who can properly debate - and trial lawyers, as a rule, can properly debate.

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
BPB: No kisses for you!
And considering your powerful stance that everyone should have to view disturbing images, where is your concern for the 99% of all families of victims that Mr. Edwards voted to leave out in the cold?

He should see em........if he voted out of malice, or just plain uncaring.

Very good, you are almost there! Cool

I don't know his motivation for voting... but do know how he voted. Perhaps he isn't quite a champion of justice after all.

In fairness, no man is perfect and his opponent has certainly made some questionable choices as well. But, I think we can all agree that that is a pretty feeble defense for anything. The man's voting record remains the same. Idea

0 Replies

Clark would have stood a chance at garnering my vote as the number one guy. It matters little to me who the Democratic VP candidate is as in my book he shares a nickname with all the fellows in whose honor Paul Salata has thrown a party for annually since 1976. (lil puzzle, no Googling!).

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
Your concern is indeed touching, O'BILL.
Which concern would you be referencing Joe?

Your concern for the plight of the injured and downtrodden. Truly it brought the image of a tear to my eye.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

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?

Well, let's take the example of the pool company responsible for the horrific injuries described by Bi-Polar Bear. Instead of reaching into the pockets of the victim, let's mandate a fixed percentage of the company's profits be set aside in a fund for past, present, and future victims of the company's gross negligence. That way, we don't punish the victims by taking part of their compensation (which seems needlessly cruel and totally out of keeping with your new-found benevolence, O'BILL) but rather we go after the actual perpetrator of the injuries. That certainly seems a lot fairer, wouldn't you agree?

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
Your concern is indeed touching, O'BILL.
Which concern would you be referencing Joe?

Your concern for the plight of the injured and downtrodden. Truly it brought the image of a tear to my eye.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
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?

Well, let's take the example of the pool company responsible for the horrific injuries described by Bi-Polar Bear. Instead of reaching into the pockets of the victim, let's mandate a fixed percentage of the company's profits be set aside in a fund for past, present, and future victims of the company's gross negligence. That way, we don't punish the victims by taking part of their compensation (which seems needlessly cruel and totally out of keeping with your new-found benevolence, O'BILL) but rather we go after the actual perpetrator of the injuries. That certainly seems a lot fairer, wouldn't you agree?

great idea....

0 Replies

Okay, here's a hint... what does this guy have in common with John Edwards?

http://www.cnnsi.com/features/1998/weekly/980629/nfl0629/images/PF06293.JPG

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
Your concern is indeed touching, O'BILL.
Which concern would you be referencing Joe?

Your concern for the plight of the injured and downtrodden. Truly it brought the image of a tear to my eye.

Still not following you Joe. Could you quote an example of this behavior?

joefromchicago wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
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?

Well, let's take the example of the pool company responsible for the horrific injuries described by Bi-Polar Bear. Instead of reaching into the pockets of the victim, let's mandate a fixed percentage of the company's profits be set aside in a fund for past, present, and future victims of the company's gross negligence. That way, we don't punish the victims by taking part of their compensation (which seems needlessly cruel and totally out of keeping with your new-found benevolence, O'BILL) but rather we go after the actual perpetrator of the injuries. That certainly seems a lot fairer, wouldn't you agree?

Aside from the method of determining the amount; that would differ from liability insurance how?

and

joefromchicago wrote:

punish the victims by taking part of their compensation (which seems needlessly cruel and totally out of keeping with your new-found benevolence, O'BILL

I'll also need to know how the victims are being punished, what's cruel about it and where did you get the crazy idea I found benevolence? Am I missing a page?

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Okay, here's a hint... what does this guy have in common with John Edwards?

They both appeared in a Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue?

0 Replies

I'm teasing you a little here Joe: Up until now, I haven't stated an opinion as to whether or not John Edwards' fees were reasonable. Frankly, I don't think it's any of my business what Mr. Edwards charges for legal fees. Unless the law is changed; Mr. Edwards skills are worth every penny someone is willing to pay him for them. The "value" is evident by the numbers preceding the signature on the contract.

When I say; "he looks pretty sleazy to me" it is a knee-jerk response, a gut reaction if you will to this sequence:

John Edwards wrote:

I find this sequence as sleazy as it is brilliant. Were I John Edwards; I'd be as proud of myself for conceiving this strategy as I was repulsed by my willingness to use it. And use it I would for a $X,000,000 fee, Joe make no mistake about it, not too much benevolence here, but alas, I'd feel pretty sleazy while doing so.

Of course there are far more principled people here on A2K than myself, Joe, and those are the very people my statement was meant to move. You see Joe; those who claim to personify such high morals and selflessness generally reside on the other side of the political fence from myself. Get it? :wink:

Joe wrote:

They both appeared in a Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue?

Wrong answer, try again and no googling! (hint:look closely at the trophy)

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Still not following you Joe. Could you quote an example of this behavior?

"BPB, I said Baby Saver and I was referring to Edward's Championing the cause of Brain Damaged Children." Really, O'BILL, if you meant this statement at all ironically I will have been cruelly deceived.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Aside from the method of determining the amount; that would differ from liability insurance how?

It would not be limited by the amount of the policy. Rather, it would be limited only by the amount of the company's culpability and the victims' injuries.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

I'll also need to know [1]how the victims are being punished, [2] what's cruel about it and [3] where did you get the crazy idea I found benevolence? Am I missing a page?

1. The victims would be punished if you take money away from them and give it to other victims. After all, if the initial award is considered fair compensation, taking part of it away makes the victim pay for the damages suffered by another victim. The only one that benefits from that kind of redistribution is the negligent company.

2. And that's what's cruel about it.

3. From your prior kind words directed toward Edwards's work on behalf of brain-damaged children. Please, O'BILL, say that you were being sincere.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

(nimh, see? McGentrix did it all in one little post.)

I know, LOL! I actually saw it before McG posted it, this afternoon on MSNBC. And I must admit it made me smile - I mean, its one brilliant piece of agitprop handwork from the RNC there, condensing pretty much everyting they can say about Edwards into just three words. "Disingenious unaccomplished liberal".

Still, I cant help feeling kinda relieved that this is also pretty much it, really. One day into Edwards' candidacy, and they've already said about everything they can say about him.

0 Replies

Nah, they haven't really tried to evoke the lawyer hating in full force yet. Wait till that becomes his label.

They've said things, but we have yet to see what force of repetition will do.

I hope they are less successful than Kerry.

Edwards needs to get out in front of people as much as possible.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
"BPB, I said Baby Saver and I was referring to Edward's Championing the cause of Brain Damaged Children."
Really, O'BILL, if you meant this statement at all ironically I will have been cruelly deceived.

No cruelty here Joe... You just read additional meaning in. I was merely stating a fact in a friendly light.

joefromchicago wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Aside from the method of determining the amount; that would differ from liability insurance how?

It would not be limited by the amount of the policy. Rather, it would be limited only by the amount of the company's culpability and the victims' injuries.

What if culpability is greater than the available funds?

joefromchicago wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
I'll also need to know [1]how the victims are being punished, [2] what's cruel about it and [3] where did you get the crazy idea I found benevolence? Am I missing a page?

1. The victims would be punished if you take money away from them and give it to other victims. After all, if the initial award is considered fair compensation, taking part of it away makes the victim pay for the damages suffered by another victim. The only one that benefits from that kind of redistribution is the negligent company.

Oh, I get it. You are trying to elicit from me an opinion about what would and wouldn't be fair compensation. But doesn't the insurance rate vary depending on the amount and frequency of awards? I don't see how that kind of redistribution is a benefit to the company directly. I mean, sure the total may come down, but couldn't it go up just as easily?

joefromchicago wrote:

3. From your prior kind words directed toward Edwards's work on behalf of brain-damaged children. Please, O'BILL, say that you were being sincere.

He did in fact work on behalf of brain damaged children, Joe I'm sincere.

Heres another hint: this Chicago Bear became a member at the same time he became a Bear!

http://images.sportsline.com//images/football/nfl/players/60x80/187550.jpg

0 Replies

Bill, they all take showers with other men?

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Edwards needs to get out in front of people as much as possible.

I agree with that!

Hehhehheh ...

As long as Edwards gets out in front of people as much as possible - and Kerry gets out in front of people as little as possible - we'll be fine Razz

0 Replies

It's kerry and Edwards

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know