Just another conservative web news organization. It’s interesting how they try to hide that on their CNSNews site, but after a little research I was able to dig up the parent company.
The difference is that you argue with Republicans on issues of substance regarding the policies of their party. You do them the courtesy of trying to win them over to your point of view on substantive issues. With Nader supporters, you simply abuse and then dismiss them as spoilers who deprive the Democrats of their rightful place in the Executive branch.
It’s interesting that you pointed earlier to a thread in which you (and others) criticize the Democrats for allowing themselves to be “defined by their opponents” in the 2002 election. You and some of the others made some telling points about the deficiencies of the party platform. I’m just curious as to how bad, as a general matter of principle, the Democratic Party would have to get before you would be willing to vote for a third party candidate? Is it sufficient to say that, as long as the Dems are a smidgen better than the GOP, then there’s no excuse to vote for anyone else? Or is there a threshold even you will not cross?
And would you be amenable to a more reasonable voting system–such as Instant Runoff Voting–which would allow people to choose third party candidates without worrying that it would queer the chances of their second-favorite option?
Sour grapes perhaps, but that still doesn’t mean it isn’t true.
I like that, extremely rare, yet this guy seems to have no problems finding cases.
Yeah, of course he screens his cases, they all do. :rolleyes:
The ones you do fuck up? The problem is every fucking shark in the country is coming after you, apparently legit or not. This isn’t a case of a few lawsuits, this is a case that Edwards opened the floodgates on, and every two-bit shark is is trying to cash in on. These people are like locusts, and when one revenue stream dries up, they’ll “find” a new area in which to fight for the “common man”. Science doesn’t matter one iota because they can easily swing the emotions of these stupid juries.
The pessimist in me says the only thing he’ll be lobbying on behalf of is the trial lawyers who are pouring money into his coffers.
I wasn’t trying to offend, just making a comment that upon re reading makes no sense at all. I sincerely apologize if I offended you, or anyone else for that matter, that was not my intent.
Of course he was overlooking the science, you don’t need that to win, you just need to stir the emotions of the jury towards the little guy. Voila! 5 million smackers.
I’m not unhappy with Edwards as a V.P. candidate given the bozos that have been named as VP candidates in the past: Dan Quayle, anyone? Lloyd Bentsen? Admiral James Stockdale?
I just hope that Edwards can somehow influence Kerry to open up his mouth and start acting like a leader. When all is said and done, we vote for the presidential candidate, not the vice-presidential candidate. If Kerry has formulated a game plan about how he’s going to change the course of the country, I certainly haven’t heard it. Kerry has had several months to come up with reasons to vote for him other than “I’m not Bush.” So far he’s been disappointingly mute. And while being the opposition candidate is sufficient for some, it isn’t for me.
Tell me Kerry has a snowball’s chance of winning Texas and I’ll be right there. In the meantime throwing my vote away on encouraging third-party participation in the process seems preferable, or at least the same as, throwing my vote away on Kerry when I live in Texas. For Fuck’s sake man, I’ve yet to see a single Kerry campaign ad in Texas(although I admit I don’t watch much TV).
Enjoy,
Steven
Where’s the junk science? Point it out to me. Show me how Edwards used junk science to obtain his cerebral palsey verdicts. Or withdraw the charge as baseless. Whichever you prefer.
Incidentally, there’s a good profile piece on Edwards from a few years ago in the Washington Monthly. I kinda like this excerpt related to Edwards’ legal career:
What the fuck? You’ve just presented us with evidence that he carefully chose a case that had scientific merit, and then you say he was overlooking the science? Was it just coincidence, then, that he chose the scientifically valid case?
I don’t get your point at all.
Daniel
But the issue at hand is not “the issues of substance regarding the policies of their party.” The issue is whether it is morally or strategically wise to vote for a spoiler candidate when doing so (in sufficient numbers, of course) is likely to result in rat poison souffle’ for dinner. If you wish to discuss specific issues of policy, I’ll be happy to demonstrate why you’re wrong and I’m right. 
In an election that is even remotely close, I will always vote for the best candidate with a plausible chance of winning. If Genghis Khan and Josef Stalin are running neck and neck, with Jesus Christ Himself polling at 2%, I’m going to vote for the lesser evil (based on their positions on the issues, of course).
I’m certainly open to it.
mtgman: I believe I said earlier that voting for sushi is perfectly defensible when it is clear that rat poison is going to walk away with the election. Since rat poison has a lock on statewide elections in Texas, you may in good conscience cast your ballot for sushi, since McDonald’s just ain’t gonna happen here.
By all means make smart ass comments if you think THAT will help.
Well I guess I’ll have to take baseless for $100, because I don’t have access to the court transcripts, nor the time or the desire to search through them if I did.
To make you happy though, I’ll tell you what you probably want to hear, I simply don’t like the guy. People who rake in millions going after the healthcare industry usually fall into a certain catagory, one I feel he’s a part of. It’s hard to prove greed though, so I guess we’ll have to let this go.
Warms my heart, but still doesn’t say much about the guy. IIRC x% of 25 million is slightly more then x% or $100,000. (x% being his take)
Accusations by people who refuse to identify themselves hold absolutely no water with me. That you’re willing to blindly believe some unidentified source whose credentials you cannot possibly check is rather disconcerting.
I like that you’re apparently ignoring the facts that are staring you right in the face in order to misrepresent the volume of Senator Edwards’ cases. Senator Edwards has practiced law for 20 years as an advocate for victims of other’s negligence. In an attempt to portray him as greedy, your quoted article says “was able to win “more than $152 million” based on his involvement in 63 lawsuits alone.” The article also says that “Cerebral palsy is diagnosed in about 8,000 infants annually in the U.S.” So, let’s do the math, shall we? 8,000 cases annually x 20 years = 160,000 cases of infants born with cerebral palsy nationwide. Even if we’re generous and say that every single one of the 63 successful suits Senator Edwards filed were cerebral palsy claims, that means he “found” 0.00039375% of all cases where he was able to prove negligence over the course of his career. Staggering, ain’t it? Seems to me that that percentage falls well within what I would consider “extremely rare” cases. Your winding road mileage obviously varies.
Thank you.
Your wish is my command. Feel free to submit your arguments in favor of the OP’s silly premise, and I’ll see what I can come up with.
Well done. Now if only “csnnews.com” had bothered to quantify its “junk science” accusation before printing it . . .
So am I to take it that you think healthcare providers should be immune from lawsuits based on their negligence that causes harm–even substantial harm–to patients? And if not, why the categorical dislike of the people who press those claims in court?
Probably 30%, which means he made a cool $7.5M off the verdict and subsequent settlement. Damn good work if you can get it–and even better for the little girl who had her intestines ripped out of her body by the swimming pool pump.
You’re being a silly twat Worldy. You’re pasting some fictitious face/personality/“type” generalization on someone you know abso-fucking-lutely nothing about. You’ve cast your jusdgement of the man based on a lawsuit about cerebral palsy, ginoring all fo the other, what 50? some odd trials he successfully litigated.
Until this morning you didn’t know about the CP suit and decided to reserve judgement. Now that you know it was a malpractice suit you’re on the negative side again. I’ve come to expect better of you man.
Sam
Actually I wasn’t even taking that short quip into consideration, there were other parts of the article that I was more interested in. I was simply responding to your sour grapes comment.
Good point, I’ll have to rethink this.
No prob.
No, not at all. I’m just a bit weary of a system where these lawyers can pull down these astronomical sums. I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t have the answer, but I can certainly see that something is broken. I would figure some sort of cap would be a good start, because at the moment there seems to be too much financial incentive involved.
Because I don’t trust their motives. It seems to be a money making racket disguised as “helping the people”. They simply go after the deepest pockets that remotely have anything to do with the case. Someone causes an accident? Sue them, their family, the car company, the tire company, and the city in which it occurred. It’s simply a shakedown, because they know full well Ford or whoever doesn’t want the bad press, so they’ll settle.
I’ll agree with you here, not bad money at all.
Please forgive me for correcting the legal expert, but it was his firm that made the cool $7.5M, not him. We have no idea what Senator Edwards’ personal take from that verdict was (unless he’s disclosed the details of his partnership contract somewhere that I haven’t seen).
And World Eater, I’m glad to see that you’re reconsidering. Good show.
This is a guy who made millions off of medical malpractice cases, most of them dealing with CP. It’s not the biggest jump to assume that he, like many of the people that do this (unless ambulance chasers don’t exist :rolleyes: ) was a slimy scumfuck. As this discussion has come to light, it’s beginning to look like Edwards is not a part of that subculture, so it looks like I’ll have to eat my words. I still question the motives of people that get involved in that line of work, I think they’re mostly full of shit, but since I can’t prove that, I’ll have to keep it to myself I suppose.
Having read through these four pages, and the nytimes link, but not the CNSnews ones, I have come to one conclusion. The nation needs to follow Nevada and have a “none of the above” option on the ballot. They also need to count it, instead of simply ignoring it.
While I find it comforting that World Eater is reconsidering, I am troubled that a man with that much disregard for the healthcare industry is going to possibly be vice president. I can guarantee he will not be a tie breaker for limits to malpractice if it comes up in the Senate. For those of us who are or will be practicing medicine, malpractice insurance is a very big deal. How does making someone’s family independantly wealthy help out the situation? It doesn’t make doctors more careful, it makes more of them not be obstetricians. And yes, I feel it is junk science, when compared to primary journals. When do trial lawyers take 4 years of medical school, and 3-5 years of residency to learn how to interpret fetal heart monitors?