benny 0
QuoteQuoteThanks for answering
Heh, no problem. I tell you a candidate who I like as well that has no chance what-so-ever, but who I like as an individual and his views is Al Sharpton. He definitly is not a popular choice, but I have read a lot about him and could see him leading our great country.
Holy shit, I'm a Sharpton head too Tuna, that's one funny, articulate man. I love him in the debates.
Never go to a DZ strip show.
cyric77 0
I also agree, I think that the framers wanted this country to be in an endless debate to stimulate people to form new ideas, which makes the U.S. one a the greatest think-tanks ever assembled.
It is more about voting against Bush than for Kerry.
"Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening."
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes
"Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening."
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes
Al Sharpton is a funny guy.
A couple of weeks ago he was in St.Louis eating BBQ ribs.
and he said
"napkin? napkin? I don't need no stinkin' napkins"
A couple of weeks ago he was in St.Louis eating BBQ ribs.
and he said
"napkin? napkin? I don't need no stinkin' napkins"
DYEVOUT 0
BUSH!!
(never saw a picture of him with Hanoi Jane)
I'm sure one of you computer savvy lefties could Photoshop one, though.
----------------=8^)----------------------
"I think that was the wrong tennis court."
(never saw a picture of him with Hanoi Jane)
I'm sure one of you computer savvy lefties could Photoshop one, though.
----------------=8^)----------------------
"I think that was the wrong tennis court."
I would pay good money for a group photograph of the look of every Republican and Democrat's face if they found out Al Sharpton won the election. Good stuff.
Forty-two
Forty-two
QuoteI tell you a candidate who I like as well that has no chance what-so-ever, but who I like as an individual and his views is Al Sharpton. He definitly is not a popular choice, but I have read a lot about him and could see him leading our great country.
I would vote for Powell before voting for Sharpton. Actually, if Powell ran I would vote for him before anyone else.
Vote #69... tiebreaker for Kerry.... Woohoo!
Blog Clicky
Blog Clicky
Powell and Clark are my two favorites. Powell would be the clear-cut choice for me as well. I love that guy. If Kerry wins, I would bet money Powell will run the following election and win.
Forty-two
Forty-two
TomAiello 26
QuoteIf it were Edwards I would have chosen him.
Can you explain why you prefer Edwards?
His ambulance chasing career makes me want to vomit. He's proud of the fact that he's successfully sued the freakin' American Red Cross three times? Talk about a sleaze...
Apologies for posting such a long article, but you might give a read to this New York Times piece:
QuoteIn Trial Work, Edwards Left a Trademark
January 31, 2004
By ADAM LIPTAKand MICHAEL MOSS
In 1985, a 31-year-old North Carolina lawyer named John
Edwards stood before a jury and channeled the words of an
unborn baby girl.
Referring to an hour-by-hour record of a fetal heartbeat
monitor, Mr. Edwards told the jury: "She said at 3, `I'm
fine.' She said at 4, `I'm having a little trouble, but I'm
doing O.K.' Five, she said, `I'm having problems.' At 5:30,
she said, `I need out.' "
But the obstetrician, he argued in an artful blend of
science and passion, failed to heed the call. By waiting 90
more minutes to perform a breech delivery, rather than
immediately performing a Caesarean section, Mr. Edwards
said, the doctor permanently damaged the girl's brain.
"She speaks to you through me," the lawyer went on in his
closing argument. "And I have to tell you right now - I
didn't plan to talk about this - right now I feel her. I
feel her presence. She's inside me, and she's talking to
you."
The jury came back with a $6.5 million verdict in the
cerebral palsy case, and Mr. Edwards established his
reputation as the state's most feared plaintiff's lawyer.
In the decade that followed, Mr. Edwards filed at least 20
similar lawsuits against doctors and hospitals in
deliveries gone wrong, winning verdicts and settlements of
more than $60 million, typically keeping about a third. As
a politician he has spoken of these lawsuits with pride.
"I was more than just their lawyer," Mr. Edwards said of
his clients in a recent essay in Newsweek. "I cared about
them. Their cause was my cause."
The effect of his work has reached beyond those cases, and
beyond his own income. Other lawyers have filed countless
similar cases; just this week, a jury on Long Island
returned a $112 million award. And doctors have responded
by changing the way they deliver babies, often seeing a
relatively minor anomaly on a fetal heart monitor as
justification for an immediate Caesarean.
On the other side, insurance companies, business groups
that support what they call tort reform and conservative
commentators have accused Mr. Edwards of relying on
questionable science in his trial work. Indeed, there is a
growing medical debate over whether the changes have done
more harm than good. Studies have found that the electronic
fetal monitors now widely used during delivery often
incorrectly signal distress, prompting many needless
Caesarean deliveries, which carry the risks of major
surgery.
The rise in such deliveries, to about 26 percent today from
6 percent in 1970, has failed to decrease the rate of
cerebral palsy, scientists say. Studies indicate that in
most cases, the disorder is caused by fetal brain injury
long before labor begins.
An examination of Mr. Edwards's legal career also opens a
window onto the world of personal injury litigation. In
building his career, Mr. Edwards underbid other lawyers to
win promising clients, sifted through several dozen expert
witnesses to find one who would attest to his claims, and
opposed state legislation that would have helped all
families with brain-damaged children and not just those few
who win big malpractice awards.
In an interview on yesterday, Mr. Edwards did not dispute
the contention that the use of fetal heart rate monitors
leads to many unneeded Caesarean deliveries or that few
cases of cerebral palsy are caused by mishandled
deliveries. But he said his cases, selected from hundreds
of potential clients with the disorder, were exceptions.
"I took very seriously our responsibility to determine if
our cases were merited," Mr. Edwards said. "Before I ever
accepted a brain-injured child case, we would spend months
investigating it."
As for the unneeded Caesareans, he said, "The question is,
would you rather have cases where that happens instead of
having cases where you don't intervene and a child either
becomes disabled for life or dies in utero?"
A Talent for Trials
Lawyers in North Carolina agree that
Mr. Edwards was an exceptionally talented lawyer, endowed
with a prodigious work ethic, native self-confidence, good
looks, charisma and an ability to talk about complicated
subjects in accessible language.
That, said his former partner Wade M. Smith, is a lethal
combination in a trial lawyer. "People don't see him coming
until it's too late," Mr. Smith said. "It's true in
politics and it was true in the law."
Even Mr. Edwards's former adversaries give him grudging
praise. "He has an ingratiating way," said Dewey W. Wells,
a former state court judge in North Carolina who litigated
against Mr. Edwards as a defense lawyer, "particularly with
jurors and particularly with women on juries."
Mr. Edwards tried his first big personal injury case in
1984, seven years after graduating from the University of
North Carolina law school. He had clerked for a federal
judge, worked briefly for a firm in Nashville and then
joined Tharrington, Smith & Hargrove, a small firm in
Raleigh, N.C., with only a limited litigation practice.
The firm took the case that resulted in Mr. Edwards's first
big jury verdict as a favor to a state senator and lawyer
who had let it languish. Mr. Edwards, then a young
associate, got the assignment because it was considered a
loser.
"I said, `Let's dump the file on John's desk,' " said Wade
H. Hargrove, a former partner at the firm.
The plaintiff in the case, Howard E. G. Sawyer, was
disabled as a result of what Mr. Edwards said was an
overdose of a drug used in alcohol aversion therapy. O. E.
Starnes, who represented the hospital, had never heard of
Mr. Edwards.
"He came over here and ate our lunch," Mr. Starnes said.
The jury awarded Mr. Sawyer $3.7 million.
"That created a buzz," Mr. Hargrove said. "The revenue that
he was producing was an out-of-body experience. John would
pick up an $800,000 fee for making a few phone calls."
In the years that followed, Mr. Edwards handled all sorts
of cases. He litigated contract and insurance disputes. He
sued the American National Red Cross three times, claiming
that the AIDS virus was transmitted through tainted blood
products, and obtained a confidential settlement in each
case. He defended a Wilmington, N.C., newspaper owned by
The New York Times Company in a libel suit.
In 1993 Mr. Edwards founded his own firm with an old
friend, David F. Kirby. Now known as Kirby & Holt, the firm
boasts on its Web site that it still holds the record for
the largest birth-injury settlement in North Carolina.
Michael J. Dayton, editor of The North Carolina Lawyers
Weekly, which frequently published summaries of Mr.
Edwards's trial victories and settlements, based on
information his firms provided, said his stature was
uncontested.
"On the plaintiffs' side, he was absolutely the top one,"
Mr. Dayton said.
Parents Felt He Cared
Something more than Mr. Edwards's reputation attracted
David and Sandy Lakey of Raleigh, N.C., the parents of a
young girl injured in a swimming pool. The Lakeys say all
the lawyers they interviewed except Mr. Edwards wanted
one-third of any award, which one of them predicted would
not exceed $1.5 million. Mr. Edwards offered to take a
smaller percentage, unless the award reached unexpected
heights.
In 1997, it did. A jury awarded the Lakeys $25 million, of
which Mr. Edwards got one-third plus expenses.
He so impressed the Lakeys that they worked as volunteers
in his Senate campaign the next year.
"I know how intelligent he is, how capable and how deeply
he cares," Ms. Lakey said.
In some ways, he might even have been too successful. In
response to a large punitive award against a trucking
company whose driver was involved in a fatal accident, the
North Carolina Legislature passed a law that barred such
awards unless the employee's actions had been specifically
approved by company officials.
Over time, Mr. Edwards became quite selective about cases.
Liability had to be clear, his competitors and opponents
say, and the potential award had to be large.
"He took only those cases that were catastrophic, that
would really capture a jury's imagination," Mr. Wells, a
defense lawyer, said. "He paints himself as a person who
was serving the interests of the downtrodden, the widows
and the little children. Actually, he was after the cases
with the highest verdict potential. John would probably
admit that on cross-examination."
The cerebral palsy cases fit that pattern. Mr. Edwards did
accept the occasional case in which a baby died during
delivery; The North Carolina Lawyers Weekly reported such
cases as yielding settlements in the neighborhood of
$500,000. But cases involving children who faced a lifetime
of expensive care and emotional trauma could yield much
more.
In 1985 he handled his first cerebral palsy case, for
Jennifer Campbell, the girl whose voice he recreated at
trial. In his book "Four Trials," Mr. Edwards described the
case as an uphill battle. The doctor was esteemed and
worked at a prestigious teaching hospital. Mr. Edwards's
associate interviewed 41 obstetricians before finding one
local doctor who would make a good witness.
It was clear which evidence would be crucial: "I had to
become an overnight expert in fetal monitor readings," Mr.
Edwards wrote.
In other cases, too, his colleagues say, the fetal monitor
readings would constitute the key evidence.
"It's just like a black box in a car," said Douglas B.
Abrams, Mr. Edwards's co-counsel in a cerebral palsy case
settled for $1 million in 1995. "You know when a truck
driver was driving too fast."
Doctors say that is an oversimplification.
"It seems to
me that only trial lawyers are experienced at reading fetal
monitor strips and are able to tell me exactly when infants
became asphyxic," or deprived of oxygen, said Dr. William
J. West Jr., an obstetrician and the president of First MSA
Inc., which administers health care savings accounts.
In any event, Mr. Edwards's closing argument in the
Campbell case still resonates in North Carolina.
"It would have been a very, very cold heart that was not
reached by that, because Senator Edwards lived in that
case," the judge who presided over the trial, Herbert O.
Phillips, said in a recent interview. "That was Edwards,
and Edwards was that case. He projected that oneness with
his client and carried that to the jury, and he did it
well."
The lawyer on the other side, Robert Clay, agreed.
"I was
thinking that is really a bold thing to do," Mr. Clay said.
"There is not really one lawyer in a thousand who could do
that without having it turn against him because he is being
hokey. It's just such a blatant appeal to emotions, like
putting up a sign: `I'm appealing to your emotions.' But
John could get away with it."
Not entirely. Five weeks after the verdict, Judge Phillips
ruled it "excessive" and said it appeared "to have been
given under the influence of passion and prejudice," adding
that "the evidence was insufficient to support the
verdict." He gave the Campbells a choice: They could accept
half of the $6.5 million the jury awarded or face a new
trial. They declined to take half, appealed the case and
eventually settled for $4.25 million.
Next weekend, members of the Birth Trauma Injury Litigation
Group of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America will
gather in Atlanta for a two-day conference. On the agenda
the first morning: "Electronic Fetal Monitoring:
Understanding How the Strips Can Help or Hurt Your Case."
A Medical Advance Is Rethought
Electronic fetal heart
monitoring was introduced in the 1960's to great fanfare.
Advocates thought it would prevent most cerebral palsy by
providing continuous immediate data on how babies were
weathering labor and delivery.
But in the 1980's, scientists began to challenge the
premise that medical care during delivery had much to do
with cerebral palsy. Studies concluded that 10 percent or
fewer of cases could be traced to an oxygen shortage at
birth. The vast majority of children who developed cerebral
palsy were damaged long before labor, the studies found.
Then a series of randomized trials challenged the notion
that faster delivery could prevent cerebral palsy.
Reviewing data from nine countries, two researchers
reported last year that the rate of the disorder had
remained stable despite a fivefold increase in Caesarean
deliveries.
Dr. Karin B. Nelson, a child neurologist with the National
Institutes of Health, says the notion that paying greater
heed to electronic monitoring will prevent brain injuries
remains just that, a notion. "Evidence of high medical
quality contradicts the assumption that the use of
electronic fetal monitoring during labor can prevent brain
damage," Dr. Nelson said.
Mr. Edwards's colleagues in the plaintiffs' bar do not
accept that analysis. "You find me a low C-section rate,"
said Daniel B. Cullan, a doctor, lawyer and co-chairman of
the trial lawyer association's birth trauma group, "and
I'll show you children in wheelchairs."
Mr. Edwards's former colleagues in the plaintiffs' bar
certainly support his candidacy. His campaign is
disproportionately financed by lawyers and people
associated with them, according to the Center for
Responsive Politics, which calculates that about half of
the $15 million he has raised comes from lawyers. People
associated with Baron & Budd, a Dallas law firm noted for
its work on behalf of plaintiffs in asbestos cases,
contributed $77,250, the largest amount, the center found.
Mr. Edwards has declined to discuss his fees as a lawyer
or the size of his personal fortune. Senate disclosure
forms suggest that he is worth anywhere from $12 million to
$60 million.
Some say that the biggest losers in litigation over
brain-damaged babies are the parents of children whose
cases are rejected by lawyers.
"For the one or two who got a substantial jury verdict,"
said George W. Miller Jr., a former state representative in
North Carolina who practices law in Durham, "there were 99
that did not get anything, either because they were not
able to finance litigation or their claim was
questionable."
"The real issue," Mr. Miller added, "is who knows what
causes these kinds of medical problems?"
He said he planned to bring up the issue of compensation
with a state commission that is studying medical
malpractice. One approach would be to limit awards and
create a fund to be shared by all families with similarly
afflicted children.
This is not the first time Mr. Miller has championed the
idea. In 1991, his legislation to create such a fund was
defeated, in large part by the state's trial lawyers. Among
those who spoke out against the bill was Mr. Edwards, who
called it a baby tax.
But Mr. Miller says he had lined up another financial
source. Insurance companies hard hit by malpractice suits
had agreed to subsidize the fund.
-- Tom Aiello
Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com
Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com
turtlespeed 220
Gheese Tom - how bout just a link next time.
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
cyric77 0
Being a health care professional myself, and after reading that article I feel nauseous. I have to be honest, I thought he was the most charismatic candidate among the democratic field, but I have a problem with people who sue organizations (Red Cross) that benefit people across the world. At that particular time (80's) the red cross was still learning about HIV, and should not have been held liable.
QuoteBUSH!!
(never saw a picture of him with Hanoi Jane)
I'm sure one of you computer savvy lefties could Photoshop one, though.
Are you making reference to the picture of Kerry with Fonda that WAS photoshopped?
http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/kerry2.asp
TomAiello 26
QuoteGheese Tom - how bout just a link next time.
Sorry, the link requires you to login to the NY Times server. I figured most people wouldn't want to go to the trouble.
-- Tom Aiello
Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com
Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com
QuoteThey're are NOT the only two people running you know....
I'm not voting for either...
Jennifer
I agree. I'll vote for neither. I've voted libertarian in the last three elections. We'll see where I put my vote again.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
crzjp20 0
the moment this country stops having debate is the moment this country will crumble. What we have to remeber is that just beacsue we disagree with someone on an issue doesnt mean they are any less of an american. This can be hard for me when it comes to issues of patriotism, and war, so i guese i am preaching to the choir here.
As for my vote, bush all the way. I feel that if karry gets in power that he will weaken national defence and completel end the war on terrorism. When we look weak we get attacked. Just like 9-11. Im not blaming it on Clinto here but we looked weak, we were unprotected and we got hit and got hit hard. I just fear that if a dem get in power right now we could revert to some of thse same problems. In otehr words i think 4 more years of GW will help to make us safer.
go ahead flame away...... actually please dont, i think i made my points in a civilized manner....
Blue SKys
As for my vote, bush all the way. I feel that if karry gets in power that he will weaken national defence and completel end the war on terrorism. When we look weak we get attacked. Just like 9-11. Im not blaming it on Clinto here but we looked weak, we were unprotected and we got hit and got hit hard. I just fear that if a dem get in power right now we could revert to some of thse same problems. In otehr words i think 4 more years of GW will help to make us safer.
go ahead flame away...... actually please dont, i think i made my points in a civilized manner....
Blue SKys
--------------------------------------------------
Fear is not a confession of weakness, it is an oportunity for courage.
Fear is not a confession of weakness, it is an oportunity for courage.
QuoteI do know that there are other people running, but to be honest I feel that either Bush will remain president, or Kerry will be elected. Some of us may not like this fact, but I believe it to be the truth. Feel free to write-in your choice for the presidency.
Wow. Really stickin your neck out on that one.
Lee03 0
I don't like, or trust either one of them. That said, I prefer one over the other. So, as I did in the last election, I will vote for the lesser of two evils. Again, I will hold my nose and vote for the one that I see as doing the least amount of damage to the freedoms and rights of my country. This, in my opinion is Bush!
I will add this, I vote now, soley as an exercise of the privledge of voting. My vote means, largely, not a fucking thing! Politicians don't give a good green God damn about the nation, or the people of it. The only thing they give a damn about is their political party, extending their powen, and pushing their agendas! I vote, only because I am still allowed to, and will continue to do so until that privledge is taken away from me. My vote is basically symbolic, since the politicans have basically made the vote inmaterial!
I will add this, I vote now, soley as an exercise of the privledge of voting. My vote means, largely, not a fucking thing! Politicians don't give a good green God damn about the nation, or the people of it. The only thing they give a damn about is their political party, extending their powen, and pushing their agendas! I vote, only because I am still allowed to, and will continue to do so until that privledge is taken away from me. My vote is basically symbolic, since the politicans have basically made the vote inmaterial!
--------
To put your life in danger from time to time ... breeds a saneness in dealing with day-to-day trivialities.
--Nevil Shute, Slide Rule
To put your life in danger from time to time ... breeds a saneness in dealing with day-to-day trivialities.
--Nevil Shute, Slide Rule
QuoteBush has alienated allies. He didn't just disagree with them he allienated them. Big difference.
and the "alienated allies" were cheating in the oil for food program.
speech Bush should deliver
QuoteWouldn't it be great if we turned on TV and President Bush delivered
>this speech?
>
>As you all know, the defeat of Iraq's regime has been completed. Since
>congress does not want to spend any more money on this war, our
mission in
>Iraq is complete.
>
>This morning I gave the order for a complete removal of all American
forces
>from Iraq. This action will be complete within 30 days. It is now time
to
>begin the reckoning.
>
>Before me, I have two lists. One list contains the names of countries
which
>have stood by our side during the Iraq conflict. This list is short.
The
>United Kingdom, Spain, Bulgaria, Australia, and Poland are some of the
>countries listed there.
>
>The other list contains everyone not on the first list. Most of the
world's
>nations are on that list. My press secretary will be distributing
copies of
>both lists later this evening.
>
>Let me start by saying that effective immediately, foreign aid to
those
>nations on List 2 ceases immediately and indefinitely. The money saved
>during the first year alone will pretty much pay for the costs of the
Iraqi
>war.
>
>The American people are no longer going to pour money into third world
>hellholes and watch those government leaders grow fat on corruption.
>
>Need help with a famine?
>Wrestling with an epidemic?
>Call France.
>
>In the future, together with Congress, I will work to redirect this
money
>toward solving the vexing social problems we still have at home.
>
>On that note, a word to terrorist organizations. Screw with us and we
will
>hunt you down and eliminate you and all your friends from the face of
the
>earth.
>
>Thirsting for a gutsy country to terrorize?
>Try France, or maybe China.
>
>To Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Yo, boys. Work out a peace
deal
>now.
>Just note that Camp David is closed. Maybe all of you can go to Russia
for
>negotiations. They have some great palaces there. Big tables, too.
>
>I'm ordering the immediate severing of diplomatic relations with
France,
>Germany, and Russia. Thanks for all your help, comrades. We are
retiring
>from NATO as well. Bon chance, mes amis.
>
>I have instructed the Mayor of New York City to begin towing the many
UN
>diplomatic vehicles located in Manhattan with more than two unpaid
tickets
>to sites where those vehicles will be stripped, shredded and crushed.
I
>don't care about whatever treaty pertains to this. Pay your tickets
>tomorrow or watch your precious Benzes, Beamers, and limos be turned
over
>to some of the finest chop shops in the world. I love New York.
>
>A special note to our neighbors. Canada is on List 2. Since we are
going to
>be seeing a lot more of each other, you folks might want to try not
pissing
>us off for a change.
>
>Mexico is also on List 2. President Fox and his entire corrupt
government
>really need an attitude adjustment. I have a couple extra tank and
infantry
>divisions sitting around. Guess where I'm gonna put 'em? Yep, border
>security. So start doing something with your oil.
>
>Oh, by the way, the United States is abrogating the NAFTA
treaty---starting
>now.
>
>It is time for America to focus on its own welfare and its own
citizens.
>
>Some will accuse us of isolationism. I answer them be saying darn
tootin'.
>Nearly a century of trying to help folks live a decent life around the
>world has only earned us the undying enmity of just about everyone on
the
>planet.
>
>It is time to eliminate hunger in America.
>It is time to eliminate homelessness in America.
>It is time to eliminate World Cup soccer from America.
>
>To the nations on List 1, a final thought. Thanks guys. We owe you.
>
>To the nations on List 2, a final thought. Drop dead.
>
>God bless America.
>
>Thank you and good night.
>
QuoteMy vote means, largely, not a fucking thing!
You should move to New Mexico, where Al Gore only won by 300 votes. It would count here!
Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!
crzjp20 0
this election is going to be so close that it is going to be sick. And yeah every vote counts
--------------------------------------------------
Fear is not a confession of weakness, it is an oportunity for courage.
Fear is not a confession of weakness, it is an oportunity for courage.
Lee03 0
Outstanding speech, with great ideas, especially the part about shitcanning the damn un! Ashamed it will not ever be spoken, or addressed!
--------
To put your life in danger from time to time ... breeds a saneness in dealing with day-to-day trivialities.
--Nevil Shute, Slide Rule
To put your life in danger from time to time ... breeds a saneness in dealing with day-to-day trivialities.
--Nevil Shute, Slide Rule
base515 0
To bad the Dems. are too ignorant to mark the right ballot. They might've had a chance!
Bumper sticker- " Honk if you voted for Gore!,,,,It's the big button in the middle."
May we live long and die out
Bumper sticker- " Honk if you voted for Gore!,,,,It's the big button in the middle."
May we live long and die out
Heh, no problem. I tell you a candidate who I like as well that has no chance what-so-ever, but who I like as an individual and his views is Al Sharpton. He definitly is not a popular choice, but I have read a lot about him and could see him leading our great country.
Forty-two
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites