Kerry & Edwards Are Running Close in Wisconsin

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

So if you hear Bush speaking out about corporate accountability, do you rush to the boards to call him a hypocrite?

No, because Bush hasn't done anything to kill corporate accounting.

 

Now, if I were to hear Clinton say it, yeah, I'd probably call him on it.

-=Mike

His argument is that since Edwards was once one of these individuals who benefitted from the system, he's a blatant hypocrite and is less than human.

 

Bush benefitted (in Arbusto, Harken Energies, etc.) from shady corporate accounting during his reign on the boards of those organizations. He has also spoken out for corporate accountability. I fail to see how this is any different.

[Guest MikeSC]

So he proposed a plan.

 

Shit, I can propose a plan, doesn't mean it's going to pass.

 

He certainly hasn't emphasized it at all, and nothing is coming into fruition from this plan. He's had 3 years to accomplish this goal, and has done next to nothing. So, why are you so high on him again?

It has to pass a Congress full of...

 

Trial lawyers.

 

Just because you WANT it doesn't mean it'll happen.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Another article on Bush's proposal. He wants to limit the lawsuits to 250,000. Now what person needs more than that? Oh, wait, what would the trial lawyers get? John Edwards is proposing nothing of the sort. Yeah, he'll "do something..."

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.

[Guest MikeSC]

So if you hear Bush speaking out about corporate accountability, do you rush to the boards to call him a hypocrite?

No, because Bush hasn't done anything to kill corporate accounting.

 

Now, if I were to hear Clinton say it, yeah, I'd probably call him on it.

-=Mike

His argument is that since Edwards was once one of these individuals who benefitted from the system, he's a blatant hypocrite and is less than human.

 

Bush benefitted (in Arbusto, Harken Energies, etc.) from shady corporate accounting during his reign on the boards of those organizations. He has also spoken out for corporate accountability. I fail to see how this is any different.

First off, the assorted "controversies" of Bush's past are hazy and based largely on doublespeak. Nobody can say Bush DID this or DID that. They can only make assumptions.

 

I've not seen him call Edwards less than human. Hypocritical, yes. Edwards IS beholden to trial lawyers --- as insidious a "special interest" group as there is. For all of the harm people claim that oil companies do to America --- trial lawyers do far more harm.

-=Mike

[Styles 0]

So he proposed a plan.

 

Shit, I can propose a plan, doesn't mean it's going to pass.

 

He certainly hasn't emphasized it at all, and nothing is coming into fruition from this plan. He's had 3 years to accomplish this goal, and has done next to nothing. So, why are you so high on him again?

It has to pass a Congress full of...

 

Trial lawyers.

 

Just because you WANT it doesn't mean it'll happen.

-=Mike

Right. It's funny, for all the times the left like's to call him "King George", they seem to conveniantly forget he can't just magically pass laws. Proposing a bill is THE MOST HE CAN CONSTITUTIONALY DO. Special interests in Congress are what is blocking it.

And I never said Edwards was less than human. I've been very clear that he has made his money legally, but I will not allow him to use that money to attain the presidency. It's like...if someone made all his money as a crime boss selling drugs, and now that he's out he's using his millions to run his campaign, and he says he'll fight the drug war. It's completly transparent and insincere. (And before Tyler jumps on me about comparing Edwards to a drug dealer or criminal I'M NOT, it was just the only stupid anaolgy I could think of...)

[Styles 0]

Another article on Bush's proposal. He wants to limit the lawsuits to 250,000. Now what person needs more than that? Oh, wait, what would the trial lawyers get? John Edwards is proposing nothing of the sort. Yeah, he'll "do something..."

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.

So, let's see. If Edwards made TWENTY THREE MILLION in a record claim, and then BROKE that record with a THIRTY MILLION dollar payout....that's 2 strikes, and almost 60 million dollars. Bullshit. Bush's cap is a solution, Edward's is comically useless...

[Guest MikeSC]

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's also fully aware that it will never pass and will never pass a single challenge. Bush can say he's all for killing anybody who litters --- would you take that seriously, though?

He has proposed that lawyers swear that they have another medical professional willing to testify in court that there's actual malpractice at work.

That you can easily pay a doctor enough to say anything, that, too, is useless.

This is more than saying he'll "do something." Stop trying to smear.

His "solutions" do nothing whatsoever. It's like trying to balance the budget by zeroing out the money we send to Bhutan every year.

-=Mike

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

First off, the assorted "controversies" of Bush's past are hazy and based largely on doublespeak. Nobody can say Bush DID this or DID that. They can only make assumptions.

 

They can't, for certain, say that Bush directly approved the actions, no. However, he certainly benefitted from shady accounting at Harken.

 

Edwards IS beholden to trial lawyers --- as insidious a "special interest" group as there is.

 

No more than Bush is beholden to corporate interests, so how is Bush not a hypocrite for preaching corporate accountability?

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

He's also fully aware that it will never pass and will never pass a single challenge.

 

How is this any different from Bush's proposals?

[Styles 0]

No more than Bush is beholden to corporate interests, so how is Bush not a hypocrite for preaching corporate accountability?

 

Irrelevant. Bush making money from "shady practices" is hearsay, and is ILLEGAL. Those that have been found out are being held accountable.

Edward's past is not disbuted whatsoever, and the problem is, it's NOT illegal. So he's not going to go after his own collegues, when legally they're not doing anything wrong.

[Guest MikeSC]

First off, the assorted "controversies" of Bush's past are hazy and based largely on doublespeak. Nobody can say Bush DID this or DID that. They can only make assumptions.

They can't, for certain, say that Bush directly approved the actions, no. However, he certainly benefitted from shady accounting at Harken.

Was the "shady" accounting ANY different from how other major corporations did it?

Edwards IS beholden to trial lawyers --- as insidious a "special interest" group as there is.

No more than Bush is beholden to corporate interests, so how is Bush not a hypocrite for preaching corporate accountability?

If Bush was beholden to corporate interests to the level you believe, why did he do nothing to bail out Enron?

-=Mike

...He should have vetoed the airline bill in 2001, also

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Was the "shady" accounting ANY different from how other major corporations did it?

 

No, and I fail to see how that matters.

 

If Bush was beholden to corporate interests to the level you believe, why did he do nothing to bail out Enron?

 

Because that would've been political suicide in the same manner as if Edwards preached against tort reform.

[Styles 0]

By the way, I like how you've conveniantly passed the buck to Bush, completely avoiding Edwards. This is not an issue of "well, wait what about what he did..." No, I'm talking about Edwards and why I will not vote for him. Instead of defending him, you're simply diverting attention to another person. So I can answer all your "but what about Bush..." related comments very simply. I do not approve of Edwards for the aforementioned reasons, Bush is not Edwards. That was easy.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

So, let's see. If Edwards made TWENTY THREE MILLION in a record claim, and then BROKE that record with a THIRTY MILLION dollar payout....that's 2 strikes, and almost 60 million dollars. Bullshit. Bush's cap is a solution, Edward's is comically useless...

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.

[Styles 0]

You have gone from "Edwards has always lived a priveleged life"

I never said this. I am offended by the WAY Edwards obtained his fortune and think it's downright laughable that he tries to paint himself as looking out for common Americans when in reality he's hurt more common Americans and leeched off others to put himself in his position.

I have not changed my positions or arguments at all, so please don't distort my words.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

He's also fully aware that it will never pass and will never pass a single challenge.

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?

 

That you can easily pay a doctor enough to say anything, that, too, is useless.

 

You could pay anyone to say anything. Our legal system depends on people to tell the truth under penalty of perjury.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

It's like...if someone made all his money as a crime boss selling drugs, and now that he's out he's using his millions to run his campaign, and he says he'll fight the drug war.

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?

[Styles 0]

(And before Tyler jumps on me about comparing Edwards to a drug dealer or criminal I'M NOT, it was just the only stupid anaolgy I could think of...)

I apologize to Tyler, Jobber you can add your name before his. We clear now?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I never said this. I am offended by the WAY Edwards obtained his fortune and think it's downright laughable that he tries to paint himself as looking out for common Americans when in reality he's hurt more common Americans and leeched off others to put himself in his position.

I have not changed my positions or arguments at all, so please don't distort my words.

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?

[Styles 0]

It only targets lawyers. It only remotely helps doctors through it's effects.

By, George, I think he's got it!

EDIT: Lawyers need to be controlled. If a cap is put on payouts, it becomes less appealing for lawyers to chase ambulences since they can't get 30 million a pop anymore, as a result doctor's have more security, their insurance goes down, more doctors enrole in medical school and patience have more choices and lower costs. Sounds good to me.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I apologize to Tyler, Jobber you can add your name before his. We clear now?

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

[Guest MikeSC]

Was the "shady" accounting ANY different from how other major corporations did it?

No, and I fail to see how that matters.

If it was the same as all major corporations, then it wasn't, by definition, "shady". It was how it was done.

If Bush was beholden to corporate interests to the level you believe, why did he do nothing to bail out Enron?

Because that would've been political suicide in the same manner as if Edwards preached against tort reform.

Bush has not been fearful of committing "political suicide" to date. I don't see why he would there.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

It only targets lawyers. It only remotely helps doctors through it's effects.

By, George, I think he's got it!

But hold on a second! You don't like the lawyers because they make life difficult on doctors.

 

So rather than support the plan that helps doctors, you support the plan that makes life difficult on lawyers. That's not any less destructive. AND, it does nothing to stop the flow of frivilous lawsuits or phony malpractice suits. It simply means less profit is being generated from each one. Which could, in theory, increase the number of phony malpractice suits that doctors face.

[Styles 0]

It only targets lawyers. It only remotely helps doctors through it's effects.

By, George, I think he's got it!

But hold on a second! You don't like the lawyers because they make life difficult on doctors.

 

So rather than support the plan that helps doctors, you support the plan that makes life difficult on lawyers. That's not any less destructive. AND, it does nothing to stop the flow of frivilous lawsuits or phony malpractice suits. It simply means less profit is being generated from each one. Which could, in theory, increase the number of phony malpractice suits that doctors face.

Read my edit.

EDIT: Lawyers need to be controlled. If a cap is put on payouts, it becomes less appealing for lawyers to chase ambulences since they can't get 30 million a pop anymore, as a result doctor's have more security, their insurance goes down, more doctors enrole in medical school and patience have more choices and lower costs. Sounds good to me.

 

Poor lawyers, only 250,000 per claim, they'll starve!

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Read my edit.

I can't avoid the hypocracy. On page 2, you state that helping people is better than hurting people.

 

But you support the plan that hurts people over the plan that helps the people needing helped.

[Guest MikeSC]

It only targets lawyers. It only remotely helps doctors through it's effects.

By, George, I think he's got it!

But hold on a second! You don't like the lawyers because they make life difficult on doctors.

 

So rather than support the plan that helps doctors, you support the plan that makes life difficult on lawyers. That's not any less destructive. AND, it does nothing to stop the flow of frivilous lawsuits or phony malpractice suits. It simply means less profit is being generated from each one. Which could, in theory, increase the number of phony malpractice suits that doctors face.

If Edwards wanted ACTUAL tort reform, he'd back "Loser pays".

 

Anything less is nothing.

-=Mike

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

It only targets lawyers. It only remotely helps doctors through it's effects.

By, George, I think he's got it!

But hold on a second! You don't like the lawyers because they make life difficult on doctors.

 

So rather than support the plan that helps doctors, you support the plan that makes life difficult on lawyers. That's not any less destructive. AND, it does nothing to stop the flow of frivilous lawsuits or phony malpractice suits. It simply means less profit is being generated from each one. Which could, in theory, increase the number of phony malpractice suits that doctors face.

If Edwards wanted ACTUAL tort reform, he'd back "Loser pays".

 

Anything less is nothing.

-=Mike

So, then, Bush doesn't want tort reform?

 

G'night, folks!

[Jobber of the Week 0]

EDIT: Nevermind.

[Guest MikeSC]

So, then, Bush doesn't want tort reform?

 

G'night, folks!

It's not a major part of his campaign. It is one for Edwards.

 

ANY reform that doesn't include "loser pays" doesn't fix a single thing.

-=Mike

[Styles 0]

Read my edit.

I can't avoid the hypocracy. On page 2, you state that helping people is better than hurting people.

 

But you support the plan that hurts people over the plan that helps the people needing helped.

I think by limiting trial lawyers to 250,000 on malpractice lawsuits (which is a lot of money for most normal people) that will result in immediate benefits to patients in the form of more choices and lower premiums is a better situation than one where premiums rise and choices decline as a result of the current free for all system.

Doctors being ruined is a little different than limitng lawyers to "a lot" of money instead of "obscene" money, and is much greater for the PUBLIC GOOD. This is not just the right thing for doctors it is the right thing for the American Public who's lives will be positively effected if anything is ever done.