Obama '08?

okie wrote:

Gore preaches his religion of global warming, yet maintains several homes and jetsets around the world regularly.

As O'Bill, hardly a fan of the Democrats as will be clear from the discussion here, pointed out to you on another thread just the other day:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Effectively, Gore pays not just the higher premium for his own energy; but also pays a self imposed stiff penalty for his excess usage by paying the difference for a significant number of other people who'd probably prefer to purchase the more expensive, more environmentally friendly Green Energy. The effect is: Gore makes up the difference environmentally so that his personal damage to the earth is no worse than the average man's... and probably less than most A2Kers. How you find something wrong with that is beyond me.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

Something that I think is sadly obvious, and yet remaining unsaid thus far, is that Edwards may be the beneficiary of all those votes that won't go to Obama because he's black. I think he is probably going to be the nominee, and not the least of the reasons is that he's the only major dem candidate that's not female or black.

So far, the polls among registered Democrats strongyly disagree with you. What seems sadly obvious to you doesn't seem obvious to me at all. In fact it seems mistaken to me. Although Edwards is my close-second-favorite candidate at this point, I hereby offer to bet 2:1 that he won't be the nominee.

0 Replies

First of all, Edwards is a lawyer. He gets paid, either directly or by a share of the award, to make a legal case for his client. Once he takes a case, benefit for the client is the guiding moral principle.

A woman comes to him because she believes the decision a doctor made in waiting during delivery hurt her baby. Edwards takes the cases, and discovers that many researchers think that the decision the doctor made increases significantly the chance the baby will have cerebral palsy, which the baby has. As a professional lawyer, Edwards would be doing a bad job for his client if he did not advance those studies in his client's behalf. The lawyers for the doctor bring up whatever studies indicate that it is not so, or at least seems unlikely in this instance, and the jury decides.

That is how the system works. That is why everyone involved calls it the adversary system, of which justice is a by-product.

True story. I forgot the lawyer's name, but he had just won a case where a young man was accused of killing one of his parents. When the verdict of Not Guilty came in, the young man turned to the lawyer and tried to put his arm around him in appreciation for representing him so well.

The lawyer bruquely blocked the arm from going around him and said to the young man, "Get your lousy hands off me, you stinking murderer".

The lawyer had done his job and presented the young man's case to his greatest ability. His personal feelings were something else. In Edwards' situation, there is no reason to think that he did not actually believe the scientific research at the time which indicated the doctor's likely guilt.

0 Replies

As far as Edwards' presentation of the case, there is a legal principle called "give the victim a face". That is, in cases where the victim is no longer alive, the jury sees only the accused or the defendant. As the trial goes on and they see the guy every day, they might begin to get sympathetic to him, since they can see him.

So good lawyers take every chance they can to show the jury pictures of the victim playing ball, at a birthday party with friends, or at their graduation if the victim is young. Anything to get the jury to bond with the victim, to counterbalance the fact that the defendant is in the courtroom every day to be seen as human by the jury.

There were no picitures in this case, so Edwards had to work with what he had, in order to humanize the victim in the eyes of the jury.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Obama, I haven't figured out, so I will not comment on him.

I fully trust that you'll find some reason or other to dislike him still as well.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
My disgusting theatrics were used to demonstrate the hypocrisy of what I consider a scumbag. His were used to tarnish the record, wallet and prestige of a Doctor who delivers babies for a living

His theatrics were used to argue the case of a mother who lost her child - and as the very article you quoted yourself noted, at the time, the medical profession was split on the validity of the theory he brought against the doctor. Ergo, he brought his side, the opposition brought theirs, and both were considered at the time to have merit - according to the very article you cite.

He argued his side the best he could, being the representative of the mother who lost her baby and wanted to bring the case. It was his job - a job without which the judicial system would not work. The whole system is after all based on the very principle that both sides argue their case the best they can, and the jury is left to make the decision call.

In comparison, you brought your self-described "disgusting theatrics" to bear for the cause of ... well, explaining why you think a guy is a scumbag. Yeah.

You also argue that he did it all "no doubt for the sole purpose of lining his own pockets" - well, you may have "no doubt", but there's no shred of evidence for that. Seems to me he was pretty passionate about his role as trial lawyer, and did it as best he could. Now you may think that the whole profession is just scumbaggery, but thats... shall we say, an opinion.

In short, if you were already tempted to use such theatrics just to argue on a bulletin board that a politician you dont like is a scumbag, I dont see how you can reasonably blame, let alone excoriate, Edwards for using these theatrics when he was under high pressure to win a big case, which at the time seemed as likely to have merit as not, on behalf of a woman who lost her baby.

0 Replies

That's because you're trying not to, Nimh.

I described Edward's performance as brilliant, because that is what it was IMO. If you're looking to squeeze some money out of tragic circumstance; Edwards is your man. He clearly exhibits exceptional skill at swaying jurors to the benefit of his client. That's his job, and he's damn good at it.

Conflicting opinions in Medicine means a Doctor has to make a judgment call. He, not the lawyers, not the mother, not the jury nor you or I is most qualified to make that judgment. That is his job. I want my Doctor to make his judgment based solely on what he knows about medicine not fear of an opportunist scumbag. Edwards played the hearts of a jury in the tragedy of a cerebral palsy case against a man for doing his job.

Sympathy for a mother whose baby was born with cerebral palsy is a pretty natural instinct. Edwards played this natural instinct for profit when he demonized a man of medicine, who was guilty of nothing more than doing his job. This became Edward's stock in trade. He used his charm, brilliance and immense courtroom prowess to play on the emotions of sympathetic juries, usually in cases where a child was injured or born with severe handicaps. It is very easy to hold him up as the purveyor of justice, but it simply isn't true. Demonizing Doctors for not being omni-knowing is not a heroic feat.

From what I've read; results of the Edwards strategy altered medicine from that day forward. C-Sections became 5 times more common, not because they were any more necessary, not because the ongoing debate between medical professionals had swung in that direction, but out of fear of opportunist lawyers using the Edwards strategy of blame shifting. In retrospect, it would appear the medical community has shown that cerebral palsy cases have not declined one iota from this artificially altered procedural norm.

What this proves isn't that Edwards should have known better, how could he? It proves that he did not. Common sense tells us that Medical Professionals are probably better equipped to judge the merit of medical procedures than lawyers and laymen, no? In this exact instance; the direct results are an unnecessary alteration of medical procedure based on the fact that exceptionally skilled opportunists like Edwards found a way to profit by exploiting the emotions of people, and convincing them that innocent practitioners of medicine should be punished, simply for being employed at the time of discovery of tragic circumstance.

This is how Edwards earned his millions. The tide was turned not by fact, but by playing on the natural instincts of people to be sympathetic and falsely demonizing medical professionals. Is he an outstanding attorney? Obviously. Has he shown to actually care about people? Quite the contrary. By punishing the innocent; he altered the judgments of medical professionals, who henceforth had to consider the potential penalty of using their own best judgment, absent the consideration of laymen who couldn't possibly know better. This is not the work of a heroic leader, rather, this is the work of a selfish opportunist who lined his pockets at the detriment of healthcare costs and healthcare effectiveness alike.

Does he fit the description of "scumbag ambulance chaser"? Yes. He is an extraordinary scumbag ambulance chaser. Is this the type of man I want for my President? Not today... Not tomorrow not ever. He embodies the very attributes we try to avoid in choosing a leader.

As you pointed out above; I'm no fan of Democrats. However; I would sooner vote for Barrack Obama then I would for any Republican or Independent of any stripe; who has already proven he places a higher value on selfish opportunism than the benefit of the people he means to rule. Edwards has proven himself that, and he's so smooth he even has intelligent people like you turning the blind eye to his greedy, self-serving, and detrimental-to-medicine past.

When a child is born with cerebral palsy, that's a shame. It shouldn't also be a lottery ticket for a scumbag opportunist but thanks to John Edwards; it frequently has been. How many other lawsuits follow the Edwards Strategy of deceitful blame shifting? Surely this cerebral palsy angle is just one of many ways scumbags exploit tragic circumstance for personal profit How much damage has been done to medicine as a result?

Like I said; keep your argument handy, because this scumbag will not become my President without protest.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

snood wrote:
Something that I think is sadly obvious, and yet remaining unsaid thus far, is that Edwards may be the beneficiary of all those votes that won't go to Obama because he's black. I think he is probably going to be the nominee, and not the least of the reasons is that he's the only major dem candidate that's not female or black.

So far, the polls among registered Democrats strongyly disagree with you. What seems sadly obvious to you doesn't seem obvious to me at all. In fact it seems mistaken to me. Although Edwards is my close-second-favorite candidate at this point, I hereby offer to bet 2:1 that he won't be the nominee.

Who do you think will? And why do you give credence to a poll that's 18-months out?

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Conflicting opinions in Medicine means a Doctor has to make a judgment call. He, not the lawyers, not the mother, not the jury nor you or I is most qualified to make that judgment. That is his job. I want my Doctor to make his judgment based solely on what he knows about medicine not fear of an opportunist scumbag. [..]

Edwards played this natural instinct for profit when he demonized a man of medicine [..] It is very easy to hold him up as the purveyor of justice, but it simply isn't true. Demonizing Doctors for not being omni-knowing is not a heroic feat. [..]

Common sense tells us that Medical Professionals are probably better equipped to judge the merit of medical procedures than lawyers and laymen, no?

Dude. I have witnessed a blatant case of medical neglect or two too many to invest the sacred trust you seem to want doctors to enjoy.

You want them to be left entirely free to practice their profession without having to fear any kind of court case about their "judgement calls". You consider the lawyers who got involved to have been some kind of scourge of medicine. You have a handy little characterisation template there - doctors good, "ambulance chasers" bad. Well, I say thats caricaturistically simplistic. Its not my experience.

Dont even think that doctors aren't as likely to also just be in it for the money as lawyers. It is one of the best-paying jobs around, after all. Many do herculean works, for sure. But many are also the stories of unbounded ego and inflated self-confidence. (Just ask nurses about the doctors they've worked with). And many are the stories of resulting "mishaps".

It is at least for a great part thanks to the oversight that's been put on their work through the opportunities for patients to sue, that the worst of the "I'm never wrong" mentality has been checked. In the past, Mr. Doctor was an authority that you would just not contest. That time is over, and that's a good thing, like a check on any previously uncontested authority is, all the more when it concerns life and death.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Edwards has proven himself that, and he's so smooth he even has intelligent people like you turning the blind eye to his greedy, self-serving, and detrimental-to-medicine past.

No, I'm not naively taken in. Certainly not by any purported "smoothness" on the part of Edwards - as I've said before, I like Edwards because of the issues he champions and the commitment to those issues he's shown since 2004 - it is exactly his personality and speaking style that least convince me. Smooth? I've still only half-forgiven him for the miserable performance he gave in the '04 Veep debate.

No, that's not it. I've got real beef with your position here. In fact, almost every of your posts here has made me more convinced that I was on to something here. I think that your reaction is over-emotional, and to a serious extent irrational - in some posts (though not in the last one), to my sensitivity, almost hysterical. (Yes, sorry.)

My beef is that they have kept handily ignoring two very basic matters.

First off - but this is actually the minor of the two points - when Edwards pursued these cases, your own quotes show, the medical profession was split on the validity of the theory at hand. He did not pursue some bald-faced lie at the cost of innocent doctors - he did not go out of his way to force through some quack theory, as you suggest. He advocated on the basis of what many of the medical experts at the time also believed. And yes, I do believe (see above) that if it appears that part of the medical profession is pursuing a malpractice, and there is credible medical testimony to that end, the patient and advocate do not have to wait passively till a new consensus has fully formed, regardless of how many people die in the meantime. If a court case can help bring about a change in practice that you believe, going on expert opinion of at least part of the medical profession, will save lives, it is perfectly legitimate to try to do so - certainly no evidence of "scumbaggery". And there is no evidence to claim, as you do, that Edwards had no such motivation and was only in it to fill his pockets.

But the other point you keep ignoring is more important, and would stand regardless. The judicial system is the basis of your society. The basis of the judicial system, in turn, is, as your article put it, as follows:

"At the time, the medical profession was split [..]. There were experts on both sides. Edwards called his to the stand; the defendants called theirs; the jury decided."

This is what justice is all about. Both defence and prosecution are guaranteed an advocate who will do his stinking best to argue their side as best as he humanly can. The judge or jury is left to decide.

The lawyer defending his client's case as best as he humanly can within the judicial rules at hand (in this case the jury system), is not just delivering a "brilliant performance", as you put it. He is fulfilling an essential service to your country's judicial system. Lawyers like Edwards did not just do their job as well as they could - and the extent to which Edwards did should surely help to lay to rest any doubts that he wouldnt give the Presidency his 100% as well - they do it as well as they should. Because the moment you tell lawyers that "morally", they're obliged to somehow do less then their stinking best for their client because their case is not worthy enough, you undermine the very basis of your judicial system.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

okie wrote:
Gore preaches his religion of global warming, yet maintains several homes and jetsets around the world regularly.

As O'Bill, hardly a fan of the Democrats as will be clear from the discussion here, pointed out to you on another thread just the other day:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Effectively, Gore pays not just the higher premium for his own energy; but also pays a self imposed stiff penalty for his excess usage by paying the difference for a significant number of other people who'd probably prefer to purchase the more expensive, more environmentally friendly Green Energy. The effect is: Gore makes up the difference environmentally so that his personal damage to the earth is no worse than the average man's... and probably less than most A2Kers. How you find something wrong with that is beyond me.

So,since he pays more,he can use more,without worrying about the consequences.
Is that what you are saying?

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

So,since he pays more,he can use more,without worrying about the consequences.
Is that what you are saying?

Electrical energy comes from two different kinds of sources:

A) dirty but cheap, or
B) clean, but more expensive.

I use up say 1,000 kilowatt hours of electricity. At the end of the month, I have two options to pay. If I pay the cheap rate, the company will purchase 1,000 kilowatt hours of power from dirty sources and replenish the power grid with it. If I pay the more expensive rate, the company will purchase 1,000 kilowatt hours of electricity from CLEAN sources and replenish the power grid with that instead.

So for the first month of the plan, everybody uses energy from dirty sources. However, for every month thereafter, the people who pay the higher rate are replacing the dirty energy they used with CLEAN energy for everyone else to use. As more people do that, the energy grid increasingly comes from clean sources, not harmful to the environment.

0 Replies

Nimh, you obviously haven't read much of Edwards case history. Your attempt to make him out to be some kind of rainmaker or champion of justice sounds good on the surface, but is being held up by bullshit.

Per your admission: The Doctor made a judgment call that the medical community was split on at the time. Does that sound like malpractice to you? Really? Whenever there's a difference in Medical opinion possible; a doctor should be sued for malpractice if he chooses the wrong (though more likely right in this case) path? That's a positive in your view? Really?

Our legal system is a fine apparatus in theory; but this case doesn't reflect that. It reflects the weakness in it that scumbags like Edwards can exploit for profit. Per your last response; the jury was supposed to be deciding whether or not the Doctor was liable for his decision, right? This isn't too tough: Could another Doctor reasonably be expected to do the same in his position? Yep. Case closed.

In comes the child channeling wiz-kid to explain that his imaginary friend actually knew more than the doctor and the segment of the medical community that agreed with the doctor and that in fact; the doctor wasn't just practicing medicine the best way he knew how (and the right way incidentally), but he was some kind of a beast who was responsible for giving that child cerebral palsy, to the tune of $6,500,000. That's justice? That's our system working at it's finest? NOT. That's what happens when a scumbag exploits human suffering for profit. That jury didn't decide whether that doctor was liable... that jury decided to show sympathy for that unfortunate child. A better judge would have thrown out the case when it was made clear that nothing about the doctor's actions weren't reasonable and customary.

I don't blame juries for having sympathy for the children of unfortunate circumstance. I do blame the scumbags who choose to make their living misleading them into punishing innocent men for being there. John Edwards didn't earn his fortune championing causes for the needy. He did it by exploiting tragedy for profit. Our justice system relies on attorneys to do their best regardless of personal feelings, true. But most attorneys don't choose to exploit human suffering for a living. Scumbags do.

0 Replies

Well, looky loo.

Jesse dumps Bill's Hill for Barack.

0 Replies

from townhall.com's front page tonight...

http://media.salemwebnetwork.com/creative/CartoonNew022007.gif

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

Well, looky loo.

Jesse dumps Bill's Hill for Barack.

That's great!

It's a big one.

Townhall, bleh. Reminds me of this, though:

http://www.cartoonbank.com/assets/1/123803_m.gif

0 Replies

It was big, soz. <nods>

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

Electrical energy comes from two different kinds of sources:

A) dirty but cheap, or
B) clean, but more expensive.

I use up say 1,000 kilowatt hours of electricity. At the end of the month, I have two options to pay. If I pay the cheap rate, the company will purchase 1,000 kilowatt hours of power from dirty sources and replenish the power grid with it. If I pay the more expensive rate, the company will purchase 1,000 kilowatt hours of electricity from CLEAN sources and replenish the power grid with that instead.

So for the first month of the plan, everybody uses energy from dirty sources. However, for every month thereafter, the people who pay the higher rate are replacing the dirty energy they used with CLEAN energy for everyone else to use. As more people do that, the energy grid increasingly comes from clean sources, not harmful to the environment.

You really think it is that simple? Define clean electrical generation methods, keltic.

0 Replies

soz

That one is cute!

0 Replies

snood wrote:

Something that I think is sadly obvious, and yet remaining unsaid thus far, is that Edwards may be the beneficiary of all those votes that won't go to Obama because he's black. I think he is probably going to be the nominee, and not the least of the reasons is that he's the only major dem candidate that's not female or black.

Since you are talking about what is sadly obvious. Obama will the benificiary of a vast majority of the black vote because of his skin color. I would not be surprised if it was a high as 80%

0 Replies

Gah.

Again, when little was known about Obama BUT his skin color, he got the lowest numbers in polls of black people. If it was just about skin color, those polls would have been high right out of the gate.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know