-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Democratic National Convention tonight...
- Thread starter GodsTyro
- Start date
- Status
Father_Brain
Banned
Obama's speech fucking owned.
Dean was kinda blah.
Reagan was boring, but made a good point.
Kennedy's speech was awful. "The only thing we have to fear is four more years of George W. Bush?" I can easily imagine Bush ads using that quote - and quite effectively.
Dean was kinda blah.
Reagan was boring, but made a good point.
Kennedy's speech was awful. "The only thing we have to fear is four more years of George W. Bush?" I can easily imagine Bush ads using that quote - and quite effectively.
mightynine
Member
Now THAT's some political debate.
ConfusingJazz
Member
mightynine said:
Now THAT's some political debate.
A vote for Kerry is a vote for BOOBS!
Raise Havok
Banned
I don't mean to sound "off-topic" (no pun intended) but John Kerry (That Pepsi-Loving Liberal) has one hell of an arm. On that note I would think to not even vote for him, but then I remember back to his safty-first bike ride, this guy knows his stuff. "Elizabeth? That's the name of my running mates wife."
jobber said:
He's a scheming trial lawyer-- his job is to be persuasive and silver-tongued. As for his prospective candidacy in 2008, well, God help us if a freaking trial lawyer is ever president of this country. Then again, many, many politicians are lawyers by trade, so I suppose the damage is already done.
Yet he also seems to make corporate america shudder in fear... which can't be all bad.Loki said:He's a scheming trial lawyer-- his job is to be persuasive and silver-tongued. As for his prospective candidacy in 2008, well, God help us if a freaking trial lawyer is ever president of this country. Then again, many, many politicians are lawyers by trade, so I suppose the damage is already done.
Raoul Duke said:
If corporations weren't so loathesome... then maybe trial lawyers wouldn't be so succesful, eh? Chicken or the egg, huh bubba?
More like, "if juries weren't so suggestible and overly emotional, perhaps trial lawyers wouldn't be so successful".
Further, Edwards was a medical malpractice lawyer who made millions on junk science regarding cerebral palsy and baby deliveries; as a result, nearly 30% of all new births in the US which are overseen by a physician now include a caesarean section, even when it's not necessary, because physicians have to watch their asses due to charlatans like Edwards, who argued-- contrary to all the scientific evidence-- that live births were what caused the CP, and that a caesarean should have been performed. Well, he got his wish: nearly 30% of all births are now done via caesarean (which is a very intrusive and harmful procedure as compared to natural birth). The results? No decrease in the incidence of CP, which has long been understood to be a purely congenital disorder. Science, not trial lawyers, was vindicated.
As a result of such frivolous and excessive cases, malpractice insurance for ob/gyns now hovers at around $100-120k/year. Think about that. Also, nearly a dozen states are considered "crisis states", where physicians (most prominently ob/gyns) are fleeing the states or eliminating obstetrics from their practices altogether. For example, Philadelphia, where the situation is rapidly devolving:
Philly in ob/gyn crisis
And I know you're not going to argue that physicians are loathsome (particularly ones who were following proper protocol), because I have stats to back up the fact that the vast majority of such cases are frivolous (85% of suits which go to court are decided in favor of the physician/hospital; independent professional arbitration panels composed of physicians, judges, and lawyers have concluded that upwards of 70% of cases brought are nonmeritorious- i.e., no neglect or deviation from proper standard care can be shown). Unfortunately, these panels have no say in the matter unless there was prior consent for arbitration in the event of a complication, as opposed to availing oneself of a trial by jury.
Unscrupulous attorneys know this, and work the system for every dollar. So, as you can see, one has nothing to do with the other (loathsome corps. vs. loathsome trial lawyers); though I do not deny the heinousness of much of current corporate praxis, lawyers simply are what they are-- loathsome all by their lonesome (hey, that rhymed
). They will manipulate any system or situation to their advantage, even when no fault is to be had. So it's not a question of the "chicken and the egg" as you posit-- corporate excesses are bad independently, and trial lawyers (not all, but far too many) are also bad independently.I didn't mean to get into such a digression from the topic, but I just wanted to show you why your point doesn't hold.
My point was made in jest. I have long held to the belief that when the Revolution comes, that "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers". Of course, I don't suppose that you're trying to imply that we should just GET RID OF all the trial lawyers, are you? Since the current political climate has pretty much given corporations carte blanche to do whatever they want, trial lawyers are sadly NEEDED to curb the excesses of the the Enrons, Arthur Andersons and Neil Bushes of the world. These are people/companies that have ruined HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of lives, and that should under no circumstances go unpunished. If there were TRUE justice in the world, Kenneth Lay would be chained to Scott Peterson and they would be forced to march through America, pelted with offal and ridiculed by the populace.
Er... but now I have branched off my intended point. I guess what I was trying to say, is that if corporations/American law weren't so fucked, then trial lawyers wouldn't be able to pull the kind of loathesome shit that they do on a regular basis. But in all honesty, knowing what I do about Edwards and Cheney, if you were to ask me which I would rather have as veep, well there's no thought required. My answer is Edwards 1000 times out of 1000.
Er... but now I have branched off my intended point. I guess what I was trying to say, is that if corporations/American law weren't so fucked, then trial lawyers wouldn't be able to pull the kind of loathesome shit that they do on a regular basis. But in all honesty, knowing what I do about Edwards and Cheney, if you were to ask me which I would rather have as veep, well there's no thought required. My answer is Edwards 1000 times out of 1000.
Raoul Duke said:
I realize it was made in jest, but I figured that perhaps there was a kernel of true belief somewhere in there, and so I desired to snuff it out with reckless disregard.
Obviously I'm not advocating dumping all the trial lawyers into the Marianis Trench (though I seem to reflexively salivate at the notion at times
), as they do provide an indispensable service which acts as a check on corporate and institutional excess. I just feel that they overstep their bounds far too frequently.And yeah, I hear ya about Cheney, but with Cheney/Edwards, it's like choosing between Mephistopheles and Beelzebub.
Baron Aloha
A Shining Example
Do you have stats to back up the fact that Edwards specifically is responsible for junk science and frivilous cases.Loki said:
Just curious as every criticim I've heard of Edwards is in the general "trial lawyers are ruining everything" sense, rather than the "look at this case where he clearly went to far" sense.
Furthermore, I have heard the "physicians are loathsame" (not literallly, but, well, you know...) argument as well, which essentially argues that a lack of adequate information regarding a doctor's, malpractice history allows bad doctors to continue praticing, driving up premiums.
I don't know too much about this stuff (just the good ol' soundbytes!) but I'm guessing the problem is somewhere in the middle, in that some trial lawyers go too far as a check on the system, and some doctors are just shitty and drive up rates....and then there's the insurance companies, who are still charging the same rates after statewide damage caps.
Um, as for the convention itself, I think there's a really strong message there when you combine Cliton's, Obama's, and Edward's messages, the really reallly ridiculously short version saying "Many Americans shame the same ideals of hope and opportunity and have many smilarities in character and value. But despite this, the system does not yet provide the same opportunity to all americans. Our policies can bridge that gap." I dunno how intentional this was, but I'm hoping Kerry can really drive home the point tonight.
DJ_Tet said:
I thank my trial lawyer every time some kid gets his fucking arm chopped off by faulty equipment and the insurance company and manufacturer refuse to take responsibility. What a bunch of douchebags, man, don't they realize corporations have it so hard already?
Late Stage Marxist
Member
Watching Obama speak I felt like I was watching history in the making.
Gruco said:
Sure, but it'll have to wait for tomorrow. However, the cases I spoke of above, about the cerebral palsy, are undeniably true-- there was NO negligence involved, and an independent panel composed of physicians, judges and lawyers found as much. Still, he preyed on the frenzied emotionalism of the jury, which must believe that every time some bad outcome occurs, somebody must be at fault. It wasn't one suit he brought (or at least not on behalf of one plaintiff)-- he argued for the systematic effect of live births on incidence of CP when a caesarean could have been performed instead (even though it was not medically indicated). As a result, now nearly 30% of new births are caesarean's in order cover the doctor's ass (I mistakenly placed this at nearly 70% for some reason- didn't mean to be alarmist, and I've edited it; still, 30% is an extreme # and respresents a manifold increase over what the rate was before his cases), and the incidence of CP has not decreased in the slightest, reflecting medical wisdom, not trial lawyer "I want me my 40%" wisdom.
I'll dig up the facts tomorrow-- I have a very busy day ahead of me.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/07/13/lawyers/index.html
Man, what an asshole. Do you realize how much money that corporation's stockholders lost just because of some girl and John Edwards' zealous advocacy? Truly despicable.
ConfusingJazz
Member
maharg said:
Holy shit you are right.
Come and knock on our door....
evil solrac v3.0
Member
Loki said:He's a scheming trial lawyer-- his job is to be persuasive and silver-tongued. As for his prospective candidacy in 2008, well, God help us if a freaking trial lawyer is ever president of this country. Then again, many, many politicians are lawyers by trade, so I suppose the damage is already done.
are you for real? i guess i shouldnt bring up the fact that abe lincoln was a lawyer too?
Loki loves to just harp on the negative aspects of Edward's and the fact that he was a trial lawyer, seemingly oblvious to all the great deeds he's done for families and victims.
"OH NO. A TRIAL LAWYER -- THE SPAWN OF SATAN!! NO, HELPING A FAMILY AGAINST GIANT CORPORATIONS IS WRONG!!!!!"
He never stops. It's old. Loki seems to hate anyone who makes more money than him.
"OH NO. A TRIAL LAWYER -- THE SPAWN OF SATAN!! NO, HELPING A FAMILY AGAINST GIANT CORPORATIONS IS WRONG!!!!!"
He never stops. It's old. Loki seems to hate anyone who makes more money than him.
JoshuaJSlone
Member
Politics. Being a trial lawyer isn't inherently bad, but definitely more people believe it is inherently bad than would believe the same about coming from common roots or some other happy thing.DJ_Tet said:
- Status