host you don't have a fucking clue what my sources are, and quit worrying about it, really, is there nothing you won't try to blame the source to cover up?

How about challenging a single one of my points?

Strange, I can't help but look at this thread in a different light after your recent comments on recent threads regarding women:

It's brought even more to light by the fact that you explicitly stated at the beginning of the thread that:

Perhaps you were trying to rationalize to yourself that the reason she is not electable isn't because she's a woman, and that there must be another reason. Have you ever considered that your strongest subconscious reason for not believing she is President material is that you have a very real bias towards women, what I call the "poor woman" belief? That women inherently need male "protection", and that we should protect them from the evils of this world?

Just something to think about...

No one has a clue what your sources are because you've not posted them. If you have information that's in question, a reliable source is required or your points will be dismissed.

I'm sorry but I can't believe Mr. Google can't figure this one out for himself. John Edwards is a shyster, anyone who knows his history knows this, most of you don't know his history obviously.

Hell host used walmart as an example of poor employment and ignored that unemployment in the country is 5% all while being condescending in that he somehow did his homework. Well to hell with that crap. All he does lately is blame the source and post his usual spam.

Here are some of Mr. Edwards cases

http://news.findlaw.com/newsmakers/john.edwards.html

Several of them have to do with C-sections, and cerebral palsy.

The argument seems to be:

o Edwards represented people in lawsuits that alleged that the doctors should have performed a c-section in a given case instead of proceeding with vaginal delivery.
- Obviously true, see the link.

o The cases were decided incorrectly. In other words, the doctor wasn't at fault, or, at least, had know way of knowing he or she was doing anything other than providing the best care.
- Highly debatable. I'm not a medical or legal expert. Prove it.

o These particular lawsuits then affected other doctor's decision making, and caused them to sometimes choose a c-section when a vaginal birth would have been a better medical decision.
- Very hard to prove. I can't imagine a doctor admitting he or she gave something other than what he thought was the best care. Medical malpractice insurance is obviously very expensive, and no one wants to be sued. Even if this bit is true, then I still wouldn't fault Edwards for it if he believed that the individuals in his cases were harmed, and proved it in court. He isn't responsible for other people's paranoia or fear of being sued.

o The increase in c-sections harmed people.
- C-sections are generally more dangerous than vaginal birth for obvious reasons. Doctors should be making the decision based upon their medical judgment instead of fear of being sued. If fear of lawsuits is really affecting Dr.'s judgment, then perhaps some action is needed.

o Edwards made a profit from these cases.
- Obviously true. That's is job.

o Edwards knew, or should have known, that these cases were frivolous, yet took them on anyway.
- If true, then he's a scumbag ambulance chaser. Prove it.

So, prove to me that these lawsuits were frivolous, and that Edwards new it. Then maybe I'll listen to you. Otherwise it's just more right-wing blather, which starts with the assumption that lawsuits are Bad because businesses might have to be responsible for their actions.

(If you've already proven such in another thread, point me at it and I'll take a look).

Google shows me a lot of what I classify as untrustworthy rightwing blather. Not that people with an agenda smearing politicians on the internet ever happens, or anything. I just have trust issues.

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=43067

I forgot that trolling liberals got it locked :thumbsup:

Ah yes, the thread that demonstrated that he was a good lawyer.

Nothing to see here, move along.

*Decided against falling into the temptation to continue the thread-jacking and pointless trolling after all*

I will just ask that we watch the 'shyster' talk. I know that in the common vernacular it can be used as a derogatory term towards lawyers, but it originated, and still carries the connotation, specifically to derogate the Jewish people.

Ustwo, you have to be trying really hard to think that the evidence you presented is unequivocal proof that Edwards did any of the things you accused him of. As far as i can tell, each piece you quoted allows for the fact that Edwards' cases might have been on the level.

It's kind of typical tactic though. Talk about why you hate certain lawyers, bring up the fact that Edwards is a lawyer, cover your libel bases by acknowledging that you have no evidence that Edwards did anything in any way improper, then go on about how much you hate certain lawyers. It's a fancy way of trying to get folks to come to a certain conclusion without actually having evidence to support that conclusion.

Going even further, as much as i don't like the phrase, i would imagine that as a proponent of the free market it's right up your ally: Don't hate the player, hate the game. The american economic system has created a market for lawyering and as such it is only natural that lawyers should exploit this market for all that they can. Since when is it like you to come down so hard on a fella just trying to earn a buck?

Now I have got to say, I don't much hold with SF's take on that other thread, but this is a completely different thing here. I don't know if Hillary is electable or not. I know that she is the only Democrat in the field (or who has been in the field) this year who might not get my vote. Not because she's a woman, but because she's a finagling, calculating, manipulative bitch. (NV casino caucus lawsuit. Perfect example.)

Now it may be that those are qualities required to run a successful campaign, and I would ignore them in a man, but I think not. It's a question of style and presentation. Who else has a presentation like Hillary? Rudy and Mit. They're both pretty darn bitchy.

Alrightey, then!

So, it looks like your primary source (which you quote in full, with a small response at the bottom - clearly you were channeling host ;-)) is the National Review Online. I would put it to you that they are a clearly biased right-wing outfit. That isn't to say that they are wrong, but, really, I don't expect them to be unbiased when it comes to a democratic candidate who also happens to be a trial lawyer who sues on behalf of 'the little guy' against doctors, hospitals, and large companies. Maybe you agree, maybe not. Regardless, let's look at the facts they present. Just because they are biased doesn't mean they are wrong.

Ok, so, to paraphrase your arguments and assumptions:

1) There is a litigation problem in the US. Trial lawyers are harming our country by their practices.

This is not self-evident to me, even though it may be so to you. Prove to me that there's a problem.

2) Trial lawyers 'own' democrats through their campaign contributions.

I'll grant you that trial lawyers contribute to democrats more than republicans. It's probably true. How is this different from every other special interest donating to politicians? How is it worse for the country than, let's say, Big Business lobbying for their interests? Or me sending a cheque to a given candidate along with a letter asking them to pay attention to my point of view? Unfortunately, money talks. That's the way the system works. People give money to the campaigns of people who agree with them on various positions, and politicians are more likely to listen to people to donate to them.

3) Edwards is part of the problem.

Is this because he's a trial lawyer and all trial lawyers are bad, or are their good trial lawyers, and Edwards has done something in particular that is bad?

Forgive me for paraphrasing instead of quoting you directly, but I'm trying to get at the meat of your arguments, and point out some assumptions that I think you are making implicitly rather than stating explicitly. Feel free to correct me if I misstated or didn't state any of your points.


More quotes - specific quotes from the original article that you use to bolster your case:

That is utter bullshit. First, the source is anonymous for no apparent reason. He or she spouts a silly accusation, which effectively amounts to "Edwards did his job as long as he got paid. Oh, and by the way, he got paid a lot." So, I'm supposed to be jealous of how much a successful trial lawyer like Edwards makes? Fine, I am. I'd love to have a job that makes me millions of dollars. But that doesn't mean he is a bad person. He only did his job so long as he got paid? So does my mechanic, my doctor, and myself. Few people can afford to work for free, and, of those that can, I assert there's no moral obligation for them to do so.

Several websites seem to indicate that he didn't do any 'pro bono' work while he was a lawyer. After a few quick minutes googling, I don't find anything to dispute that. If true, that's certainly a concern - my understanding is that it's considered a professional obligation for attorney's to provide some pro bono work. It's something I'd like clarification on. However, it doesn't necessarily disqualify him as a candidate for president, to me, and doesn't seem worthy of the hatred people have for him.

Do you think Edward's charged too much for his services? Maybe so, but from what I've read, they sound perfectly inline with standard lawyer fees to me. Unfortunately, we live in capitalist system, and people can charge whatever the market will bear. Apparently the market bears paying (good) lawyers lots and lots of money. Fine. Edwards, btw, worked on contingency - meaning if he lost a case, he got nothing. If he won, then he got a (large) percentage of the 'winnings'. Apparently his clients thought this was fair. As an aside, it's important to note that many of the 'high dollar' awards we hear about are later reduced by a judge, on appeal, or by plea bargain.


Ok, let's assume for the sake of argument that scientific consensus has been building since the 1980s that 'doctors could do very little to cause cerebral palsy during the birthing process.' Fair enough. I haven't done the research to check up on this, because I've spent too much time on this post as it is, so I'll accept it as a given for now. However, from the very article you quote:

So, a cerebral palsy expert, who one would assume is up on the latest research, says that while it is 'quite unusual' for cerebral palsy to be caused during delivery, it does happen in 'some cases'.

So, what proof do you have that:

1. The specific cases that Edwards was involved in were cases where the doctor was not at fault? What specifically about the case makes you think it was decided incorrectly? Where did the judge and jury go wrong?
- Remember, the article you quoted still allows that cerebral palsy *could* be caused during delivery. One would assume that Edwards would tend to pick cases that he could win - in other words, those cases where the doctor was at fault.

2. If you think that some of the cases Edwards won for his clients were illegitimate, then what makes you think that Edwards had reason to believe that the doctor was not at fault? According to the article you quoted, scientific consensus had not yet been reached in the 80's and 90's when Edwards was taking part in these cases.

3. What, exactly, did Edwards do in these cases that was so wrong?

Hrm, maybe this is a clue to what you think he did wrong:

So, apparently the author of the article knows that it was the emotional plea by Edwards that swayed the jury, not the facts of the case. He doesn't back up this assertion with facts, alas. The quote mentioned above is cheesy, to say the least. It's clearly an emotional plea, with more than a little mumbo-jumbo. However, I suspect that Jennifer's parents *hired* Edwards to speak on their daughter's behalf in the most eloquent way he could, because they thought she had been harmed by her doctor. The jury in this case agreed with this, and awarded the parent's compensation. The judge approved the verdict. Edwards got paid his part of the settlement. What part of this process is wrong?

Making emotional pleas on behalf of their clients is one of the things lawyers do. Any decent lawyer recognizes that juries decisions are not entirely logical. This is a flaw in our legal system - that juries (and judges) are human, and are often swayed by things other than plain facts and logical arguments. If you have a recommendation to fix it, I'm all ears. However, in the context of our legal system, it was Edward's *duty* to argue for his clients as best he could. Not just an option. A duty. He has a duty to make the strongest possible case, within the law and the guidelines of his profession. When has Edwards ever been charged with violating the law, or reprimanded or disbarred for his conduct?

He was a good lawyer, by all accounts, including in this aspect. Great. If I needed a lawyer, it sounds like he would be a good choice. This doesn't necessarily mean he'd make a good president. But on the other hand, it doesn't mean he'd be unsuitable.

You haven't show me any wrongdoing on his part. It sounds to me as if you're against the very existence of trial lawyers. I find that to be completely ridiculous. You're welcome to hold that opinion, but if you're trying to convince me that it is true, or that Edwards is a bad guy, you haven't managed it.

How did Edwards behave improperly? Who did he harm?

Hillary Clinton soundly defeats "Uncommitted"!

Michigan results are in and Hillary takes a decisive win over "Uncommitted". Dennis Kucinich finished a distant 3rd.

"Uncommitted" vows to prevail in South Carolina :)

She is unelectable on account of this flag.

http://politicalnightmare.com/images...llaryflag2.jpg

This has to be very deliberate.

samcol: you've totally lost me. she's unelectable because of the American flag?

Because the picture was intentional, like that's a conspiracy.

Look at the stars. I have never ever seen a flag with upside down stars. I mean how the hell do you even get a flag with upsidedown stars. Isn't that disgraceful?

Ok I'll just say it, upside down stars are satanic. I really don't see how this is some kind of accident.

Huh?

How dare an American presidential candidate purposely use an American flag.

:confused:

Are you kidding me?

Yeah, dude, you've lost me.

The US flag has never had stars with 2 points on the top and 1 point on the bottom. Her flag has upside down stars. Look at real flags.

1. It's very disgraceful to the flag
2. Upside down stars are a symbol of satanism.
3. Have you noticed the GOP flipped their star upside down on their logo recently?

It's pretty weird to see this done so covertly when the symbol is expressly known to be satanic. Especially when it is delibertly changed.

1) There is no official direction of stars on the flag.
2) Upside down stars have literally hundreds of meanings, none of which is evident in the picture above. It doesn't appear photoshopped.
3) Never noticed that. Of course I'm atheist.

It's a sign. It's true. Hillary will be America's Oliver Cromwell!!

Hillary Clinton, Lady Protector of the Commonwealth of America!

It's okay everyone. I fixed it. Here's the same picture with the stars pointing up.

http://www.normanrockswell.com/images/flag.jpg

Could it be that "Uncommitted" guy behind the conspiracy?

Thats a myth.

http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-shy1.htm

Just thought I'd throw that up there before I get back to this thread.

This has to be very deliberate.

http://www.normanrockswell.com/images/commflag.jpg

Touche', I'll go ahead and retract my previous statement concerning where the term originated. Nonetheless, the connotation is there and, be it a myth, it is a popular myth and commonly understood in that context. Now, I believe you meant nothing particularly anti-semitic by it and that's why I'm not berating you for its use or lashing out at you in any other way. All I was respectfully asking is that we watch it and not go on using it because of the connotation. I'm still hoping for that. But if its some sort of deal for you to honor that request then I'm not going to raise a fuss about it either and will just consider my request denied. That being said, I have nothing more to say in this matter and am looking forward to sitting back and watching this thread get jacked by Satanic Hillary conspiracists.

otto: LOL

even if I were to agree that this is something worth spending any time discussing...which I don't...you don't have anything to say about what it means. What exactly are you trying to say, other than "look at the stars!" Are you saying that Hillary Clinton and the GOP are all part of one large Satanic cult that is planning to take over government in order to usher in the antichrist and bring on the end times? Or are you trying to say something else?

will: Excellent investigative work, but if you take a closer look...
oh no! :)

sorry, couldn't resist... I promise no more pics. Back on topic!

Unfortunately for Hillary, there is considerable (and somewhat undeserved) baggage she carries from Bill's tenure. Because those days linger in our collective political and pop-culture memories, it's still an easy target. Bill may be her best or worst asset. She seems to be holding her own for now.

Hillary has a new theme song.
 

Hillary has a new theme song. The Clinton campaign just released this today ...no joke.

This is very sad. She pays advisers for this?

R.I.P Hillary


<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5FvyGydc8no&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5FvyGydc8no&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

It's got to be a hoax, or from misguided loyal followers.

It at least looks like it was pieced together by first-year college students. You know, from one of those media programs.

I have no idea what happened to Hillary. She was a pretty good Senator, worked hard, made herself accessible. I voted for her. She's very savvy. I'm very surprised at how her campaign appears to have massively miscalculated.

Right... I wouldn't recommend counting Hillary out yet. She has massive leads in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas (all extremely delegate rich states). Plus the DNC still has to decide what to do about Michigan and Florida once convention time rolls round, all the more so since it doesn't appear either candidate will have the requisite number of delegates come convention time. This is going to come down to a deal making at the convention for superdelegates and that could go either way.

I am only repling to the title of the thread because it is a pet peve of mine. Anybody is electable if they get enough people to vote for them. Even if they won't win, people should still vote for who would best represent their views and who they feeel will take the country in the best direction.

I don't think so... If it wasn't for going head to head with Obama, she would have had this in the bag long ago.

The democrats have two solid potentials and the results show it.

She isn't all that far behind and there are still a lot of delegates to vote.

/me moves to Canada.
Never in the almost 30 years since I first registered to vote have I been so dismayed, disheartened and disgusted with the electoral process and the politicians who partake of it.

Any time I was unsure of who was in the running or didn't like the major party players, I voted for a woman if one was on the ballot. But I wouldn't vote for Hillary if she paid my bills off and cleaned my house for a year.

This whole election makes me shudder....

I thought voters were supposed to be borderline manic with our candidates this year. [/sarcasm]

http://www.oilempire.us/graphics/Can...ction_2006.jpg

Which region do you intend to move to?

I plan on moving to Niagara-on-the-Lake* and opening a lovely B&B charging overly inflated rates found appealing to snobbish American tourists.


*a 'quaint' tourist trap of shops not unlike our own New Hope, Pa., surrounded by wineries and winding scenic roads.