Jobber of the Week

Yeah, I saw that, I was merely making an observation.

Right. And the Bush proposal you so heartily approve of does not do anything to actually help doctors. It only targets lawyers. It only remotely helps doctors through it's effects. How is that any less "destructive" than trial lawyers?

Quite a comparison to use against a guy who even you admit made money legally. So, can we call Bush's energy plans equally hypocritical?

So how is that any different than Bush? Kind of makes the whole "Bush's plan VS Edwards' plan" thing kind of moot, doesn't it? You could pay anyone to say anything. Our legal system depends on people to tell the truth under penalty of perjury.

So, like, where's the proof that these cases were frivilous or didn't involve legitimate malpractice? We haven't even touched upon the issue that the crux of your arguement is that mapractice suits are the sole reason for rising health care costs. By that arguement, health care costs should have never changed since it's inception until some time in the 90s. You have gone from "Edwards has always lived a priveleged life" to "Edwards wants to ruin health care for personal gain" to "Edwards has no plan to control these lawsuits" to "Edwards' plan to control lawsuits is phony because he made money from lawsuits." We can play this game until the cows come home. I just wonder how many times I must rebuttal your ever-evolving arguement before you've run out of positions.

He has proposed a "Three Strikes & You're Out" program for attorneys filing frivolous lawsuits. Three frivilous cases would suspend an attorney from filing suit for the next decade. He has proposed that lawyers swear that they have another medical professional willing to testify in court that there's actual malpractice at work. This is more than saying he'll "do something." Stop trying to smear.

Did you?

Uh.. I thought that "woman spills hot coffee on lap" stuff happened and was done with.

There's not a hell of a lot he can do except take them to court. The judicial process is already in session. He isn't shirking his duties. In his statement, he encouraged the court to enforce the law. That's all he can do at this point.

That's not always true. This is very different from saying that he's always lived a privelaged life.

Problem #1: You're casting Doctors and other medical professionals into the underprivelaged crowd. Problem #2: If someone has become successful as a trial lawyer, does that mean that they are not a good person? That they can contribute nothing? That they are completely untrustworthy? Compared to GW, friend of many a Fortune 500 company and CEO?

Go ahead and start naming the Presidents in the past few decades who weren't rich white men. I'm listening. Would make sense if they were attacking each other. They aren't. They're being mostly friendly while presenting two opposing approaches to the same issue that many Democrats believe are both better than how GW is approaching them.

As an Edwards guy who knows a lot of Dean people in California I think it's looking good. I think the analysts are underestimating Edwards' trade message in California. Silicon Valley has been decimated by outsourcing. I was afraid Bush was going to take more free potshots but it seems his people were caught expecting an early nomination

I'd say he succeeded.

And that would be unacceptable. Why?

http://www.donotcall.gov/

I need to make a hat. Do you have some tinfoil? This is a non-event that will make bigger headlines on the National Enquirer than on the Wall Street Journal. It was cast into the court of public opinion the day after it broke where it was cast off as rumormongering. And yes, Kerry has denied it: I'm not a Kerry fan, but this "story" is old and it has no legs left.

Oh hell, I'll admit Dean made improvements where they showed up: Online. He's now dropped, btw. I like all the Edwards interviews I saw all over the morning shows and that the news in general (although I don't watch "fair & balanced" news unless I have no other choice) are now portraying it as a two-guy race instead of a sweep.

You missed what I was saying. My point is that it's stupid that you insisted I not pay attention to the influence of any bias in an opinion article, while I know I've talked with you before about the claims of bias in hard news. Hard news is inherantly more trustworthy than opinion.

Fact is, Rudo, if someone said this on this board, you wouldn't hold it up as an example of how people don't experience things the same way everyone else does. You would likely either call them stupid or say they don't understand quality wrestling and move on. And this bit Makes me wonder if he was watching the same show. They DID show the line outside, didn't they?

L4W, you also forgot about the short feud between Brock and Hulk Hogan prior to Rock. Lesnar's big options at this point are HHH, Kane, Shawn, a returning Edge. I also believe that Deadman Taker is practically a new opponent depending on how much of his original character he keeps. A good old-school Undertaker Vs Big Guy casket match could still pop some buys as long as the fued is kept short. Of course, I also think Austin is still a possibility, as he could probably take it excluding chairs, Germans, and the F-5, and he's kind of in debt of a job having skipped town on Lesnar once, and then later said he'd play ball if the build was right.

I'd like to think the boost from Dean supporters would greater the number of people turned off by a Dean endorsement, but I'm kind of convinced all those Dean supporters we heard about 4 months ago aren't supporting him anymore.

Then all the more reasons to consider the source. Why should I forget he's against gay marriage? Why should I not at least be suspicious that his position may paint a picture that's spun or not enitrely accurate? You're the people who run around talking about this huge slant in the media and the need to look for bias in the pages of large, respected journalistic organizations. You should know how this works.

Well, there it is. Don't have much more to say.