PDA

View Full Version : These "political" threads...



91nordic29
08-04-2004, 07:47 AM
these "political" threads always bring me to the same conclusion:
there are some people wo are WAY out in left field, the ones you guys refer to as commie pinko fag tree huggers, etc. there are also some people that are so out to the right, it is scary. jerry falwell, and those militant groups that live out in the boonies and train for some sort of armageddon (sp).
but, i think that most of us are somewhere in the middle and really dont want anything too much different that the guy next to you; we love our country, we are sick of terrorism, sick of being taxed to friggen death on everything over and over and over again, i could go on.
there are bound to be some hot points (abortion, immigration, etc) but i think we are all alot closer than we think. too close for name - calling and the likes.
i digress...

Debbolas
08-04-2004, 07:49 AM
It would be nice if we could have a political discussion without resorting to the name calling.........(you deck dancer you!) lol;)

summerlove
08-04-2004, 07:51 AM
while it may not appear to be, I am actually a moderate democrat. I have very conservative family values, am fiscally conservative yet my social conscious is more left than center.
I agree 100% with your comments, however.

Jeanyus
08-04-2004, 07:54 AM
I think you already said that.
I'm sticking with the carbs, cause I'm thinking that trial lawers are really good at taking money out of other peoples pockets, and will tell any lie to achieve thier goals.
2 lawers in the white house, prepare to get raped, finacially.

summerlove
08-04-2004, 08:17 AM
Originally posted by Jeanyus
I think you already said that.
I'm sticking with the carbs, cause I'm thinking that trial lawers are really good at taking money out of other peoples pockets, and will tell any lie to achieve thier goals.
2 lawers in the white house, prepare to get raped, finacially.
Kerry was not a trial Lawyer, he was a prosecuter. as in going after the bad guys.

Jeanyus
08-04-2004, 08:25 AM
If it looks like d duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck,
Then it must be a duck.

Dave C
08-04-2004, 08:26 AM
I agree. No need for name calling.
we can have a civil "argument" without pissing on each other.
well most of us can at least.;)

summerlove
08-04-2004, 08:30 AM
Originally posted by Jeanyus
If it looks like d duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck,
Then it must be a duck.
So it's ok to misrepresent Kerry as a trial lawyer when in fact he was a prosecuter?

eliminatedsprinter
08-04-2004, 08:35 AM
I enjoy the debates, but I could do without the name calling that is directed at members of these boards. Calling the dems in Ca's legislature left wing Whackos etc is fine, because that is really the most polite way to discribe them.;) But calling the people we are talking to on these boards names or telling them to shut up is uncalled for. Unless it is very clearly done in jest (I mean we don't want to get all PC and uptight here do we).:cool:

Jeanyus
08-04-2004, 08:47 AM
Ok you win. Kerry was a prosecutor. If you hang around lawers all the time , work with lawers, chances are you are going to start thinking like them.
You should read about how Edwards , 1 man, put the entire, obstetrics profession, out of business, in the state of Louisiana.
He won the lawsuit on a lame technicality, and it snowballed, huge setelments being awarded. To poor people, who claimed that their babys were injured during child birth. They could not prove that the babys were injured by the proceedure used, but the docters cuold not prove that the procedure didn't injure the child.
Maybee this is the way the Dems plan on helping the poor.
The only problem is that, a few poor people got some money, Edwards got rich, and doctors wont touch a pregnant woman.

Havasu Cig
08-04-2004, 08:57 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by 91nordic29
[B]these "political" threads always bring me to the same conclusion:
"and those militant groups that live out in the boonies and train for some sort of armageddon (sp)".
That reminds me, I need to go buy some more ammo.
:D

HM
08-04-2004, 08:59 AM
"Midget Fortune Teller Escapes From Jail;
Police Look For Small Medium At Large."

mirvin
08-04-2004, 09:08 AM
Goodtimes:D
mirvin:cool:

eliminatedsprinter
08-04-2004, 09:14 AM
Originally posted by summerlove
So it's ok to misrepresent Kerry as a trial lawyer when in fact he was a prosecuter?
So a prosecuter is not a type of trial lawyer??;)
Last time I looked, in a criminal trial the defendant's lawyer was the defense lawyer and the states lawyer was the prosecuter.:D

summerlove
08-04-2004, 09:29 AM
Originally posted by Jeanyus
and doctors wont touch a pregnant woman.
no kids being born in LA i guess???
I'm a product of the trial lawyer system - my dad was one. He was also the most ethical person I have ever known. Just because he represented individuals who had serious injuries comitted against them out of negligence doesn't make him a bad guy. He did get rich as an attorney, he worked his ass off. He once told me if everyone who owed him money would have paid him all that they owe, he'd be rolling in it. He let it slide and accepted small checks from those less fortunate. In the early days, he wrote off most of what he legitimately earned because many of his clients were not too well off. Sometimes a case could take years to get to trial, and the plaintiff's atty was bankrolling the entire case. There were times we went with very little as a result. After the trials, however, he was rewarded. My father never lost a case, and gained the respect of the legal community. I have no problem with ethical, hard working individuals who are successful in their careers, regardless of their profession, be it legal or otherwise.
I'd be willing to bet that if you put 100 lawyers into a room with 100 members of society that the attorney's would be "cleaner" than thier comparison group. Sure, there are bad apples, just like there are bad apples everywhere. Just because they are attorneys they get a little more attention.

eliminatedsprinter
08-04-2004, 09:30 AM
Originally posted by eliminatedsprinter
So a prosecuter is not a type of trial lawyer??;)
Last time I looked, in a criminal trial the defendant's lawyer was the defense lawyer and the states lawyer was the prosecuter.:D
P.S. I have never observed a dimes worth of differance between the ethics of prosecuters or defense attnys, some of each are good and some of each are bad, which side of the trial they are working doesn't seem to make much differance. In fact, they often seem to switch sides, like pro atheletes, as the opportunities present themselves...

eliminatedsprinter
08-04-2004, 09:42 AM
Originally posted by summerlove
no kids being born in LA i guess???
I'm a product of the trial lawyer system - my dad was one. He was also the most ethical person I have ever known. Just because he represented individuals who had serious injuries comitted against them out of negligence doesn't make him a bad guy. He did get rich as an attorney, he worked his ass off. He once told me if everyone who owed him money would have paid him all that they owe, he'd be rolling in it. He let it slide and accepted small checks from those less fortunate. In the early days, he wrote off most of what he legitimately earned because many of his clients were not too well off. Sometimes a case could take years to get to trial, and the plaintiff's atty was bankrolling the entire case. There were times we went with very little as a result. After the trials, however, he was rewarded. My father never lost a case, and gained the respect of the legal community. I have no problem with ethical, hard working individuals who are successful in their careers, regardless of their profession, be it legal or otherwise.
I'd be willing to bet that if you put 100 lawyers into a room with 100 members of society that the attorney's would be "cleaner" than thier comparison group. Sure, there are bad apples, just like there are bad apples everywhere. Just because they are attorneys they get a little more attention.
There is some exaggerating going on here on both sides of this issue.
Yes, Edwards did use discrediited junk science to win a trial that seriously harmed the profession of obstetrics.
No, it didn't put them all out of business, it just made it cost more for them to practice and as a result there are fewer of them and they cost more....

Jeanyus
08-04-2004, 10:05 AM
Summerlove
Sounds like things have changed a lot.
I have been the victum of a crime, that went to trial, and ended in a guilty verdict.
I have been through a divorce, that ended in a trial.
I have beed sued by a subcontractor, that claimed he was an employe, workmens comp settled out of court.
And I have been sued by a client, which was settled out of court.
I have also been a witness in court procedings, where employees
were trying to sue employers.
I have never seen people lie, like I did in these court proceedings.
Todays sucessfull lawers are the best liers, the best actors, in thier minds, telling the truth has no business in the court room, lieing is the norm.
With your dad ethics he would not be able to survive as a lawer in today society. I assume he's retired.
And no matter what anyone says this country is going to be worse of with lawers in the white house.

gnarley
08-04-2004, 10:19 AM
Originally posted by 91nordic29
i think that most of us are somewhere in the middle and really dont want anything too much different that the guy next to you..
I have said this same thing many, many times here. I bet there are 20% on the far left and right, then the rest of us make up 60% in the middle who really want most of the same things and really only have a few decisive issues that we argue about. No matter how much you believe in something it is not your right to beat someone up for their opinion even if it is wrong or you think it is wrong. We all have a right to those opinions, and even if we feel strongly about them we might be wrong.
Wouldn't it be better to persuade someone to agree with your viewpoint by pointing out the positive reasons why you see a topic in a particular way?
Isn't it fair to also consider and point out the negative sides also while presenting those viewpoints?
After all how could one make a truly balanced decision if you only presented one side of a picture?

AzDon
08-04-2004, 10:26 AM
Originally posted by summerlove
no kids being born in LA i guess???
I'm a product of the trial lawyer system - my dad was one. He was also the most ethical person I have ever known. Just because he represented individuals who had serious injuries comitted against them out of negligence doesn't make him a bad guy. He did get rich as an attorney, he worked his ass off. He once told me if everyone who owed him money would have paid him all that they owe, he'd be rolling in it. He let it slide and accepted small checks from those less fortunate. In the early days, he wrote off most of what he legitimately earned because many of his clients were not too well off. Sometimes a case could take years to get to trial, and the plaintiff's atty was bankrolling the entire case. There were times we went with very little as a result. After the trials, however, he was rewarded. My father never lost a case, and gained the respect of the legal community. I have no problem with ethical, hard working individuals who are successful in their careers, regardless of their profession, be it legal or otherwise.
I'd be willing to bet that if you put 100 lawyers into a room with 100 members of society that the attorney's would be "cleaner" than thier comparison group. Sure, there are bad apples, just like there are bad apples everywhere. Just because they are attorneys they get a little more attention.
Bravo Rick!
It amazes me that some people are not just indifferent, but actually have contempt towards folks that have chosen to make their living by protecting the rights of others.
I think these folks will cheer when GW gives the executive order to "kill all the lawyers" (all except GW's lawyers, that is!)
Fifteen minutes after the lawyers are gone, these same people will be horrified that all their rights have been stripped and the system no longer has time to hear their complaints and there are no "experts" available to shepard their complaints through.
We are a society with laws designed to enforce fairness and honesty and lawyers simply are at the heart of making the system work properly.
If Mr Edwards won a case on junk medical science, the insurance companies will either appeal or simply roll those costs into the policies of doctors that still do the same procedure in the same way.
A thought about malpractice insurance;
If the medical establishment would voluntarily expell inept doctors instead of protecting them in a shroud of anonymity, the rates would be more reasonable. A good analogy would be if all trucking companies were able to insist on keeping drivers that have at-fault accidents. Insurance for trucking would cost big-time and those cost would be passed on to consumers. In reality, when a company determines at-fault against their driver, they immediately get rid of him and tell their insurance company that the problem is taken care of!

CARGUY
08-04-2004, 10:30 AM
The biggest problem with Calif Trial Lawyers is Code "17200". Simply put "17200"allows an Atty to sue an entity(car dealers)on behalf of the general public. 17200 doesn't require the Atty to have a client, and to prove any damages. Most law firms create their own "special interest"group and sue on their behalf, although they are not required to. All they sue for is atty fees, and when they win, and they usually do(check prop 65 lawsuits involving "chemicals known by the State of Calif to cause birth defects"), no damages are paid to any client, charities involving infants with birth defects, or any other positive organization. The fees are kept by the atty's.
The people of Calif are getting more educated on this as is the Atty General, The Trevor Law Firm in Bev Hills was one of the biggest violators of this code. Some may remember John and Ken going after them. The firm is no longer practicing law.
I have personal exp with this and it is the most f'd up, en-ethical, code on the books. It is a shame that it is giving good ethical Atty's(yes they do exist--one represents my company)a bad name in this state.
Sorry for lengthy post but this hits home.

JakeAisA
08-04-2004, 10:56 AM
Does anybody know what "trials" John Edwards won to get his $60 Million?
He specialized in sewing doctors, hospitals and healthcare companies for "causing brain damage in babies becuase they didn't deliver those babies via cesarian section." It has been proven since that there is NO correlation between brain damage and natural birth versus cessarian section birth.
He legally raped doctors, hospitals and healthcare companies, amassing great wealth in the process, and it was all based on lies and bad science.
This man aspires to be one bullet from the Presidency. He's a rat by definition.
If calling a rat a rat makes me a whacko...then that's exactly what I am.

OGShocker
08-04-2004, 12:48 PM
Originally posted by Dave C
I agree. No need for name calling.
we can have a civil "argument" without pissing on each other.
well most of us can at least.;)
Be quiet! You right-wing nutjob!:D

rrrr
08-04-2004, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by summerlove
So it's ok to misrepresent Kerry as a trial lawyer when in fact he was a prosecuter?
Wrong.
Kerry practiced law in Boston from 1978 to 1981, a partner in the law firm of Kerry and Sragow. He won several lawsuits against a doctor that was using nylon fibers for hair implants, his most well known case.
Gee, a stinkin' liberal that doesn't know the facts. What else is new? :D :D
J/K :p

Dave C
08-04-2004, 01:39 PM
SL,
Your old man must have been an exception to the rule. If he is not practicing in Cali anymore then he probably is a stand up guy. There are probably more exeptions out there too.
I work for lots of lawyers. Most of them are dirt bags. But they pay well.
OGS, you sick freak. BTW can't we all just get along? :)

eliminatedsprinter
08-04-2004, 01:44 PM
Originally posted by JakeAisA
Does anybody know what "trials" John Edwards won to get his $60 Million?
He specialized in sewing doctors, hospitals and healthcare companies for "causing brain damage in babies becuase they didn't deliver those babies via cesarian section." It has been proven since that there is NO correlation between brain damage and natural birth versus cessarian section birth.
He legally raped doctors, hospitals and healthcare companies, amassing great wealth in the process, and it was all based on lies and bad science.
This man aspires to be one bullet from the Presidency. He's a rat by definition.
If calling a rat a rat makes me a whacko...then that's exactly what I am.
No need to insult an entire species here. Rats are amazing rodents and they are much cleaner than most people think they are ......:D I always felt bad when I had to feed them to my snakes....;)