A first(?) thread on 2008: McCain,Giuliani & the Republicans

blatham wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

This is almost too funny: Romney is telling voters that he and his wife will not embarrass the country like the Clintons'. They ignore the Bush embarrassment not only to our country but the world. Without the ability to prioritize what is important to our country, Romney is singing Dixie at a time when our country needs a real leader that knows what's important. That he's even running for president is the real embarrassment.

Entirely predictable, ci. Find any common rightwing talking point and you will find it being parroted now by Romney. If there has ever been a shallower and less sincere candidacy, it has somehow escaped my experience.

Really? Let me refresh your memory... Here's a shot of the "I'm not Bush" candidate.
How shallow and insincere do you suppose he had to come off in order to lose to George Bush?

Hell, for that matter, right this minute; you have a baby-channeling ambulance chaser, setting aside his lucrative career (screwing baby-Doctors) to end poverty.

Your view of trial lawyers represents a fringe view. He was just doing his job, that he was hired to do.

When you spend an ounce of time talking about Giuliani's corruption, or Mitt's crappy business practices of hiding money offshore, maybe your opinion will have a little more validity. As things stand, there doesn't seem to be much there but partisanship.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Your view of trial lawyers represents a fringe view. He was just doing his job, that he was hired to do.

You betray an acute ignorance when you blather such generalities. Watch:
FACT: Not Every Trial Lawyer does Personal Injury.
FACT: Not Every Personal Injury Lawyer specializes in pre-natal medicine.
FACT: Not Every PI specialist who did from 1985 is still pretending they weren't using junk-science to screw innocent doctors out of millions. (Cold hard FACTS state that a 500% increase in cesarean deliveries, spanning 3 decades and multiple countries has resulted in not one iota of change in the rate of Cerebral Palsy. NOTHING.)

I don't hold Edwards in disdain for being a Trial Lawyer. I hold him in disdain for being a Scumbag who extorted millions from innocent doctors.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

When you spend an ounce of time talking about Giuliani's corruption, or Mitt's crappy business practices of hiding money offshore, maybe your opinion will have a little more validity. As things stand, there doesn't seem to be much there but partisanship.

Cycloptichorn

It's getting a little tiresome reading your drivel about A2Ker's credibility and whose opinion has validity, etc. Get over yourself. Your opinion means no more, and your opinions of other's qualifications to offer opinions; means absolutely nothing to anyone but you.

As for Partisanship: You may soon see how silly it is to toss that accusation about without qualification. I've accused dozens of people of being hyper-partisan… but the "I know you are but what am I" retort doesn't work on me. :wink: Watch:

Giuliani's corruption? Show me proof of the caliber I've delivered to make my case against Edwards; and I'll be happy to endorse it. I've already got some material in the hopper from nimh about Giuliani; but I confess; I've never taken Romney seriously enough to look into him. Based on your accusation; I can tell you that keeping money in other currencies is a simple matter of common sense (if you have enough to worry about). Have you not noticed the Euro Vs. Dollar? Forex is the new Stock Market for long-term protection against a weak Dollar. Unless he's ducking taxes; "offshore" is not a dirty word.

If it's integrity in a Republican you are looking for; all signs seem to point back to McCain. Edwards, by virtue of his inability to this day to admit he specialized in monetizing a science that has since been demonstrated NONSENSE: is quite possibly the most compelling liar ever to run for the Oval Office. By contrast; Barrack Obama seems, to me, the quintessential outsider who freely admits his mistakes and missteps. I know of no scandal whatsoever that he hasn't commented on as matter-of-factly as you or I might. Hillary is about in the middle here. She says all the right things… and would probably have my endorsement; if I believed her. I don't. If the idea is really to get Bill back in the WH; I'd first like to hear him explain that obscene list of Pardons. (Anybody remember those?)

On the Republican side: They don't have much hope left for my vote. The SC is not yet too stacked with Righties (IMO), but it's teetering on the verge. I'll not endorse another candidate that seriously wants to take steps in reverse (women's rights-wise). Save your breath regarding McCain on this: I believe his pandering necessary and ultimately insincere on the Pro-Life/Choice Issue. Giuliani also passes muster here, but Nimh seems pretty sure he's tainted… and ultimately going to be cannon-balled in the primaries anyway.

Peace,

I think that Edwards was paid to go into the court room and argue to get his clients money. That is the purpose of lawyers who practice personal injury cases. He was doing his job; if you don't like personal injury lawyers, that's fine, but he wasn't particularly worse than any others. I also have noticed that over time, many of those who decry lawyers and payouts and call for Tort Reform are quick to turn to such lawyers when they themselves seek recompense; see Bork's recent about-face.

And yes, from time to time he probably employed some bullshit arguments. So f*cking what. This probably makes him more qualified to be president. And it's not an uncommon thing for all lawyers to do, whether they represent individuals or companies.

I haven't seen evidence that personal injury lawyers are seen as scumsuckers by the general population; therefore, I'm afraid that I must reiterate that your view of such lawyers is a fringe view. Evidence that it is not a fringe view would change my opinion; can you present such evidence? I would bet not.

"Would you generally trust each of the following types of people to tell the truth, or not? . . ."
Would Trust in, 2006, 2002, 1998
Doctors 85 77 83
Teachers 83 80 86
Scientists 77 68 79
Police officers 76 69 75
Professors 75 75 77
Clergymen or priests 74 64 85
Military officers 72 64 *
Judges 70 65 79
Accountants 68 55 *
The ordinary man or woman 66 65 71
Civil servants 62 65 70
Bankers 62 51 *
The President 48 65 54
TV newscasters 44 46 44
Athletes 43 * *
Journalists 39 39 43
Members of Congress 35 35 46
Pollsters 34 44 55
Trade union leaders 30 30 37
Stockbrokers 29 23 *
Lawyers 27 24 *
Actors 26 * *

As for the rest,

I've been supporting McCain on the Republican side for about two years now, so it's gratifying to me to see the adults in the Republican party wake up to this.

Romney's business record of tax shelters: I support revamping the IRS to eliminate the practice of avoiding taxes by hiding money overseas in tax shelters. I consider such behavior to be immoral, at least as much so as trial lawyering such as Edwards practices.

OB, have you forgotten the Keating 5 issue with McCain?

Huh? Utilizing available, Legal Tax shelters is on Par with cheating innocent Doctors out of millions, how?

I disagree with the 'cheating doctors out of millions' line, sorry. I understand that this is your opinion, but it's hardly a concrete fact. The truth is that he presented arguments in court which you and others disagree with. How do you equate that to 'cheating?' The defense attorneys had their opportunities to make their case and they failed to do so. As far as I can tell, that's how our justice system is supposed to work.

Quote:

Huh? Utilizing available, Legal Tax shelters is on Par with cheating innocent Doctors out of millions, how?

Well, barring the bit about doctors, I don't think it should be legal to utilize tax shelters in foreign countries in order to bilk the US gov't out of funds. At all. It's morally reprehensible.

To Be Young And in Love With Ron Paul

By Libby Copeland
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 2, 2008; C01

DES MOINES -- The Ron Paul boys have come to this great state by bus and borrowed ride, with long johns under their jeans and little in their pockets.

All day, they go door-to-door in the snow on behalf of their hero, the libertarian and 10-term Republican congressman Ron Paul. At night, they sleep in YMCA cabins, one of which has no hot water.

"A lot of guys in a small area," says Jeff Frazee, the Paul campaign's youth coordinator. "Doesn't smell the best."

During spare moments, which are rare, the Paul boys watch guy movies such as "Transformers" and wish there were more girls around.

Oh well, says Adam Kirschner, 23, of Ozark Christian College, leaning against a wall in the campaign office. "We didn't come here for the chicks."

"Speak for yourself," says Eddie Siegel, 18.

One of the unlikeliest stories in this city in the last days before tomorrow's caucuses is the young men who have flocked to the long-shot candidacy of Paul. He seems an unusual icon for them. He is 72 and a great-grandfather. He has been married half a century. He adores his tomato plants and is generally mild-mannered when not calling for the abolition of the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Education.

"He's so sweet," says Corey Walsh, 19, a college freshman from Marshall, Ark., who recently got to give Paul a hug. "I really wish he was my grandpa."

The Paul brigade has come to Iowa as part of a student outreach effort the campaign calls "Ron Paul's Christmas Vacation," which makes the whole thing sound madcap, like a Chevy Chase movie. And it is a little like that. There are nearly 300 young people staying at camps across the state. The ones nearest Des Moines spend their days hopping on and off a 1980s school bus that's been painted red, white and blue and dubbed the Constitution Coach. It drops them off in neighborhoods where the kids canvass and where -- on a recent weekday around noon -- two Paul boys have very little luck getting anyone to talk to them.

"How do you feel about Ron Paul?" Andrew Pierson, 21, asks a man coming down his driveway in Johnston. Pierson's mustache has icicles on it.

"I feel like I've got about 15 minutes to eat lunch and get back to work," the man replies.

Pierson's compatriot, Daniel Selsam, 23, has taken off his gloves to better grip the pamphlets he's putting behind people's screen doors. His fingers ache from the cold.

"I'm going to get freedom frostbite!" Selsam says.

("Freedom" is a favorite catchphrase of Paul acolytes, along with the word "Constitution."

Continue reading...

O'Bill, I'm going to have to excuse myself for not answering your last post to me.. I will try to still do so, but it's not going to be today or tomorrow.. apologies.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I disagree with the 'cheating doctors out of millions' line, sorry. I understand that this is your opinion, but it's hardly a concrete fact. The truth is that he presented arguments in court which you and others disagree with. How do you equate that to 'cheating?' The defense attorneys had their opportunities to make their case and they failed to do so. As far as I can tell, that's how our justice system is supposed to work.

Quote:

Huh? Utilizing available, Legal Tax shelters is on Par with cheating innocent Doctors out of millions, how?

Well, barring the bit about doctors, I don't think it should be legal to utilize tax shelters in foreign countries in order to bilk the US gov't out of funds. At all. It's morally reprehensible.

Opinion? NOT.

FACT: 500% increase in Cesarean deliveries changed Cerebral Palsy rate not at all.
FACT: The John Edwards Strategy is to use fetal heart monitoring tapes to pretend CP was given to unfortunate children by their doctor's failure to use Cesarean Delivery.
FACT: This technique was still earning hundreds of millions for scumbags as late as 2004, despite it being junk-science.

How? Juries naturally want to side with the imminently pitiable victim of CP. Vs. Rich Insurance company. Simply hit the emotional triggers to get people to disregard the simple facts. It is a hole in our Legal System that A-holes like Edwards exploit.

In channeling a dead baby; he pretended it was the dead baby explaining to the jury what the doctor was doing wrong. Problem is: Science tells us the doctor wasn't doing anything wrong. Do you really think the non-expert baby-channeler should be given more credibility than modern science? If not; how can you fail to see the obvious truth in my summation: John Edwards cheated innocent doctors out of millions.

Why do I feel I'd be getting almost no resistance to this obvious revelation of FACT, if John Edwards were a Republican?

Using legal Tax Shelters, bad> Exploiting human emotions to screw innocent doctors out of millions, good. Got it.

Fact: if it's a hole in the legal system, then it ain't cheating, is it? What you're really pissed about is that Edwards was good at his job, which was to make his clients money by using argumentation. The defense attorneys had every opportunity to make the exact arguments that you are making, and they either did not do so or they failed to convince the jury that this was the truth.

You are angry at the wrong people. You should be angry at the juries who awarded the money - after all, it was they who made the decision. But, you aren't, b/c that isn't convenient for you. It's far more convenient to be angry at Edwards, isn't it?

Fact: Romney made his clients money by using loopholes in the system as well; he gamed the tax code. You say this is 'perfectly legal' but it's no more legal then Edwards presenting an argument in court. Romney was abetting the stealing of money from the US gov't by rich taxpayers, but you don't have even a sliver of a problem with that, do you?

Keep your false equivalences to yourself. I don't think that being a trial lawyer is good or bad. Just a job. And you're right - like those juries, I don't give a **** about health insurance companies, truly some of the most predatory businesses in our society.

You need to stop using a few phrases, b/c they are inaccurate: First, 'cheating'; Edwards cheated no one. Second, 'cheating doctors;' he didn't cheat any doctor, but got settlements from insurance companies. There's a big difference and you know it.

Cycloptichorn

Also,

You seem to be making a basic tort-reform argument, that juries can't be trusted in cases like this. I reject that argument completely and find it to be ridiculous. Upon review, I don't agree that there exists any 'hole in the system' at all. Personally, I feel that people should be more sympathetic to individuals then insurance companies.

I also would like to point out that malpractice claims are not, as is often claimed by the right-wing, responsible for rising insurance rates. Not even close.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Fact: if it's a hole in the legal system, then it ain't cheating, is it? What you're really pissed about is that Edwards was good at his job, which was to make his clients money by using argumentation. The defense attorneys had every opportunity to make the exact arguments that you are making, and they either did not do so or they failed to convince the jury that this was the truth.

You are angry at the wrong people. You should be angry at the juries who awarded the money - after all, it was they who made the decision. But, you aren't, b/c that isn't convenient for you. It's far more convenient to be angry at Edwards, isn't it?

Fact: Romney made his clients money by using loopholes in the system as well; he gamed the tax code. You say this is 'perfectly legal' but it's no more legal then Edwards presenting an argument in court. Romney was abetting the stealing of money from the US gov't by rich taxpayers, but you don't have even a sliver of a problem with that, do you?

Keep your false equivalences to yourself. I don't think that being a trial lawyer is good or bad. Just a job. And you're right - like those juries, I don't give a **** about health insurance companies, truly some of the most predatory businesses in our society.

You need to stop using a few phrases, b/c they are inaccurate: First, 'cheating'; Edwards cheated no one. Second, 'cheating doctors;' he didn't cheat any doctor, but got settlements from insurance companies. There's a big difference and you know it.

Cycloptichorn

Talk about an argument of convenience. Edwards didn't really cheat Doctors, because they were insured? What is this fairytale "big difference"? You are damn right the juries and even the plaintiffs are as responsible as Edwards. However; I consider those fooled by his bogus misrepresentation of science far less culpable than he who does the fooling. It is natural for parents to want to blame someone when tragedy strikes. It is equally natural for a good natured jury to wish to relieve some of that pain. There is nothing natural about an opportunistic scumbag who perverts the facts of tragedy into blaming it on an innocent doctor.

Your: it's legal so it's not wrong BS is easily exposed as well (as if the hypocrisy of your Romney stand doesn't highlight it enough). Watch: If it were legal to torture the truth out of witnesses; would that make it less wrong? (Duh!) It is legal to exploit human emotions, but that doesn't make it right... and I'm becoming increasingly convinced that only an alterior motive could obscure this obvious truth.

As for Romney's supposed Tax Invasion: Don't confuse yourself by thinking I'm defending him, or that I have reason to. I'm not, and I don't. He will never receive the most important vote there is (mine).

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Also,

You seem to be making a basic tort-reform argument, that juries can't be trusted in cases like this. I reject that argument completely and find it to be ridiculous. Upon review, I don't agree that there exists any 'hole in the system' at all. Personally, I feel that people should be more sympathetic to individuals then insurance companies.

I also would like to point out that malpractice claims are not, as is often claimed by the right-wing, responsible for rising insurance rates. Not even close.

Cycloptichorn

Slow down there, Cyclo Quixote. I have yet to endorse Tort-Reform myself, because I'm unsure how best to protect the innocent. It is not necessary to know a solution to recognize a problem.

If you think insurance rates aren't affected by Billions of dollars in malpractice settlements; you are an idiot. (I know you're not; so just retract that nonsense.) I'll grant you that isn't the main force behind increases.

Pretending that it's okay to sue innocent people because they are insured is simply pathetic. How did you come up with that?

Back up; I never said "it's legal, so it's not wrong." There are plenty of things which are wrong, yet legal. Even if I accepted your position that Edwards' presentations were immoral (not that you've presented anything other then your opinion to support this, so I currently don't), they weren't cheating, which is what you said. He didn't cheat the system. Just presented an emotional argument in court which you disagree with the validity of.

Do you have evidence that Edwards knew his presentations in court were incorrect at the time he gave them? If you can't present that, then it is entirely fair to say that he believed he was telling the truth. It's the same WMD argument people have been peddling about Bush for years - in no small part yourself. You label him a scumbag b/c (in your opinion) he was lying for personal gain and for the gain of his clients. Unless you can present proof of that, I'm afraid to say that your opinion isn't an informed one; he very well could have been acting in good faith.

Cycloptichorn

Um, when did I say it's okay to sue 'innocent people?' The people weren't innocent outside of your opinion; the juries found them guilty of malpractice. You disagree with the science presented by Edwards, and that's your right. But please drop the 'innocent doctors' line, sheesh.

Like most legal cases, I'm sure some were decided correctly and some were not. Some of the doctors Edwards went after were negligent and some were not. You seem to be labeling them all as innocent with very little other then opinion to back up your position.

As for the rate increases, there have been no significant increases in the amount of malpracitce payouts over the last seven or eight years, and insurance rates have skyrocketed during that time. The reason? Insurace companies have made some poor investment decisions, 'specially in the late 90's, and have to recoup the loss somehow. You have not presented any evidence that rates have actually risen due to payouts, only your opinion. Not compelling.

Laughing Read the NY Times story and you'll see the cost of the Edwards scam rise from 6.5 million to over one hundred million in less than 20 years. I would call that significant.

Pretending that paying out billions of dollars for anything doesn't result in increases remains idiotic.

If John Edwards has as powerful an influence as O'Bill thinks he does (on anyone other than O'Bill), it seems he'd be the best candidate, by far, for president.

The U.S. needs a leader who can convince people/countries of things.

O'Bill's arguments make Edwards that leader.