Monday, July 18, 2011
Blogospheric Flatus Interruptus
All that it takes is for one crazy mother-fucker to go off; as in, to put on full display his or her paranoiac rantings, etc.. And while I may never be metaphysically certain who in the hell this miscreant is, that doesn't really matter all that much, now does it? The holding of a grudge for years and years is the holding of a grudge for years and years/it doesn't matter one iota which way the stench is blowing........................................................................................................P.S. Neither, apparently, does the miscreant seem to understand censorship. Yes, folks, we DO live in a free society. And, yes, we're also entitled to say basically anything. But we can't frigging say that "anything" wherever or however we want. I can't, for instance, go over to my neighbors house and stand under her window yelling, "Fucking bitch (this, in retaliation for her loud music, inability to scoop up dog-crap, etc.)!!!" Nor, folks, am I ever allowed to take a dump on her living room floor. I mean, I know that this is basic stuff and all but......
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
73 comments:
People often use "freedom of speech" as an excuse to say whatever want to say, when really it prevents the government from limiting speech. If you don't like what someone says on your blog, you can delete them without infringing on their "freedom of speech".
Feel free to delete this comment if you don't like it. I won't sue. :)
Exactly, Jerry. It all has to do with the government restricting you. This guy can say whatever he wants about me.....ON HIS BLOG!!
I assume you are referring to the "anonymous" poster who you claim distorts your record? The guy you warned in the prior post? I like that guy. I thought his last comment was pretty funny.
You can do what you want with your blog though. Delete comments you don't like, and even call the person making those comments a "crazy mother-fucker"... and claim what they say amounts to "paranoiac rantings"... even though some may disagree about the truthfulness of such statements.
But I think the things you describe are illegal. The first would be harassment and the second would be trespassing. Leaving disagreeable comments on a blog isn't illegal.
I consider this MY living room. And I delete a lot fewer comments than Sue does. You like him? Fine, have him insult me over at your fine blog.............I was very cordial to this guy and I ignored a lot of his conspiratorial insults. No more. And if it's the guy who I think it is, the bastard made some disparaging comments about my mother right after she died. Fuck him.
Hey Will,that taking a dump on their living room floor works wonders...believe me it will shut them up in a NY minute.In fact I did it to some of my far left kook neighbors....I've never been invited back and my wife was pissed off at me for about a week,but now we laugh about it over a glass of wine.
As I've said before Will,I consider your blog to be completely moderate.I certainly dont agree with your positions most of the time but I respect your comments which are usually insightful and honest.Those of us from the old LC days know just who anonymouse is and take his comments with less then a grain of salt.The only blog where he's welcomed is thats crackpot one in Maine where he's viewed as a sage.Tells you something about that gang.
Compare your blog to Sue's echo chamber...forget that, there is'nt one.You allow both sides to duke it out (including WD)where as Sue just hits the delete button if anything negative is ever uttered about the chosen one or his policies.Thats not a blog...its a chat room,or a democratic campaign room.Nothing wise evey happens there.
So Will,if Rusty's opinion matters at all...you are doing quite well....and really well compared to some of the far left cookoo blogs.
Now for something completely different (apologizes to Monty Python.)
Looks like MSNBC fired another one of their on air "tallents." Someone named Skank.Why any network would put a person on air named Skank....I just could'nt fathom,but they obviously did.
Now it seems they are going to give this Skank person the boot and replace him with the Rev.Al Sharpton....strange choice,but I'm sure Rev.Al has been given a huge supply of race cards to throw around.Should be interesting for about a week.
O.K.last different subject change.From where old Rusty is sitting it looks like the Grand Old Party has Obie over a barrel.
He's either going to have to sign a deal with massive spending cuts and zero taxes or he's going to have to agree with the now Reid-McConnell plan that will allow him to raise the debt ceiling three times prior to the 2012 elections.This plan also includes spending cuts along with no taxes.Either way it looks like the community organizer has put himself in a kurfuffel.
Last week that Larry O'Connell guy on MSLSD was beside himself crowing how Obie had bamboozled the GOP....whoops...looks like Larry spoke too soon.
Damn it, I hate when I'm brought into a conversation for no good reason, but I guess I should be flattered!
Anyone who regularly reads my blog and has had the displeasure of watching lisa come by and turn a thread into her personal chatroom MUST agree she is a fuckin troll and I will not put up with someone who NO OTHER legit blogger does, Why should I?? Why do I get criticized for deleting her and her fake friends?? They are a group of NY'ers and their one goal is to disrupt liberal blogs. As for other points of view, I get many respectful bloggers who leave respectful comments worthy of debate. If they are just there to disrupt then I have every right to delete.
There needs to be a "Like" button for the flagrant use of the F-word.
The CDM "Likes" this.
Sue,your nose is going to grow for lying.
Rusty: [Lawrence O'Donnell] was beside himself crowing how Obie had bamboozled the GOP.... whoops... looks like Larry spoke too soon.
Sorry Rusty, but President Obama did bamboozle the Republicans (with the help of the Tea Party)... A majority of Americans see President Obama as reasonable and the Republicans as unreasonable. This is going to help him get re-elected.
As for the Reid-McConnell plan... I think you should remember, "nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed to".
In remarks made TODAY (Tuesday July 19, 2011 1:32 PM EDT) President Obama said that he saw "Republican senators... acknowledge that revenues will have to be part of a balanced package...".
Whoops, I guess Rusty started crowing about a Republican victory too soon!
Sue, I don't know the total history of you and Lisa. But at least from what I can gather, she didn't attack you personally. Yeah, she engages in conservative hyperbole to match your liberal hyperbole (Reich Wing, etc.) but it didn't seem necessarily directed at you. This anonymous miscreant not only lied about and insulted me, he's also made some disparaging comments about my mother in the past. He's the lowest of the low............And the only reason that I brought you up at all was because Mr. wd seems to have an issue with me deleting this scumbag but ZERO issue with you and your deletings. I was just looking for some of that good old fashioned progressive consistency, that's all.
Russ, thanks for the encouragement, bra. You're quite a decent chap. I don't care what wd says about you. And, yes, by all means, keep the Debbie Wasserman Schultz jokes a comin'. As far as I know, those aren't against the law, either.
CDM, I went over 3 years on this blog without ever having used the F-bomb (I would always say frigging instead). Now you can't frigging, er, I mean, fucking stop me. I'm either getting frustrated or trying to fit in. Either way it isn't at all becoming.
Rusty: Looks like MSNBC fired another one of their on air "talents". Someone named Skank.
WTF Rusty? Do you seriously think this BS is funny? How the hell did you expect anyone to guess who the hell you're talking about when you get the guy's name SO wrong?
The article I found says Cenk Uygur (of the Young Turks) was hired as an "interim host", and was "never given the 6 pm slot on a permanent basis".
Therefore he was not "fired", he just didn't get promoted from "interim" to "permanent"... which is a shame, because while I like the Reverend Al, I preferred Cenk Uygur. MSNBC should hire both of them and stop repeating Chris Matthews.
Will: Mr. wd seems to have an issue with me deleting this scumbag but ZERO issue with you and your deletings.
Untrue. You can delete whatever you want, which is EXACTLY what I said. Also, I think Sue should let Lisa's posts stand. In the past I found it annoying when I responded to something Lisa said... and then Sue deleted the Lisa post. But again, Sue can do whatever she wants on her blog.
I think your prejudices against me are causing you to imagine disagreements that don't exist.
Will: keep the Debbie Wasserman Schultz jokes a comin'.
Do you also think he should also keep the racist innuendo a comin' regarding the president? I'm going to guess "yes". Rusty has all the racist dog-whistles down cold, yet you seem (intentionally?) oblivious.
I don't think you are a racist, just (either oblivious) or so eager to buddy up to Rusty that you're willing to overlook his obvious racism.
Also, I know nothing about the "anonymous miscreant" making disparaging comments about your mother, but if he did... I wouldn't be cool with it.
I think that Rusty says a lot of what he says (and, no, I probably shouldn't be speaking for him) just to get under your skin. What exactly is in his heart, couldn't tell you.
Rusty's a provocateur and your sensibilities are readily offended. It's a match made in heaven/hell.
My sensibilities are not readily offended. That's bullshit. What he says does not get under my skin. He says something incredibly offensive and I object. That's all there is to it. Frankly I don't give a shit about Rusty. What's more troubling is you making excuses for him when you don't have an effing clue what the truth is (or are in denial about what the truth is).
Me, I believe he says what he means. He's a racist teabagger.
the point is Will, I delete lisa because she is a troll who takes over a thread like it's her domain. My BP soars and she makes me puke....so my perogative. I also agree with you deleting your anon, he's pretty nasty.
It sounds like he gets under your skin a little bit, wd. LOL............Sue, absolutely, if the biotch (I love that word, btw) makes you physically sick then you really don't have much of a choice but to seep-six her. God damn, no amount of blogging is worth getting high blood pressure over.
The truth is.......
Behind door #1?
Why WD,are we cross? I dont think I could bear it if we were cross.
Its a shame people like WD see everything through a completely partisan prism.His ilk called W any vile name they had in their limited vocabularies....that was fine,but they throw the race card when something negative is said about Obie.
In a recent comment I said WD suffered from white guilt...he proves this point again and again.
No WD,Rusty is far from being a racist,although someone of your beliefs is perfectly comfortable making that charge,similar to how your side frequently drops the nazi bomb.As for what you think about me? To me you're inconsequential,a bug on the winshield.
The fact is WD,my opinion of this president is very similar to how you feel about W.I think Obie is a total incompetent,I think he's in way over his head,I think his policies(if continued)will bankrupt the country,I think he's a typical Chicago politician...nothing more,nothing less.
Rusty: my opinion of this president is very similar to how you feel about W. I think Obie is a total incompetent, I think he's in way over his head...
Yes, that is what I thought at first. But you use all the dog whistles, and you use them constantly. You know what you're doing Rusty. I may have a "limited vocabulary", but I'm not quite that stupid.
If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck...
Wow,my "dog whistle" seems to be attracting you.Now,sit...roll over...give your paw...lay down...play dead.
Russ, you mentioned Al Sharpton. In my mind, there are 2 Al Sharptons. You've got the affable/easy going Al Sharpton. And you've got the Tawana Brawley/make Don Imus grovel Al Sharpton. I personally much prefer the affable/easy going Al Sharpton.
A person controlling blog content by removing messages is nothing like censorship. In fact, it is rather close to freedom of the press.
Just like how when the New York Times chooses not to publish certain letters to the editor, it is practicing freedom of the press, not censorship.
Rusty: I don't care what WD has called the previous President in the past (he seems to call him "Bush", right?). All I know is that your calling the current one "Obie" makes you look bad instead of making the President look bad.
Will: Good point on Sharpton. I wish he were the funny insightful one all the time instead of the corrupt inciteful one.
dmarks,I call him Obie (something I saw on Mediaite)because I have absolutly no respect for the man,it has nothing to do with his skin color.He would still be incompetent if he was white,yellow,green or blue.
I feel the country was bamboozled by a slick Chicago politician who gave great speeches,but as we are now seeing was ill prepared for the job.As a president he makes a good community organizer.
What would you rather I call him dmarks?
Rusty,
Do you seriously think that McCain/Palin would have been better? What would they have done differently that meets with your approval?
No Jerry,I was'nt a McCain/Palin supporter,did'nt vote for them.
The republican field was'nt to my liking, although I could have held my nose and voted for Romney.
I'm still quite amazed how many "smart" dems fell for the bullshit artist from Chicago...hope and change my ass.I do think some lefties like WD were suffering from white quilt and blindly ran towards Obie.
It could be argued that someone voting NO for McCain/Palin was, in effect, voting YES for Obama/Biden, especially if the person lived in a swing state.
That being the case, I thank Rusty for his support of Barack Obama in the 2008 election.
BTW, I voted for John Edwards in the primary, and Barack Obama in the general... not because he was black, but because he was the democratic nominee. White guilt wasn't a factor.
I'm guessing Rusty voted Barr/Root.
You're a good judge of character voting for Edwards WD,he turned out to be a fine human being.I just wish the Breck Girl would have gotten elected....what a fine comedy that would have been.
Speaking of creepy dems...right on the heel's of Weiner gate there's a new sordid story breaking about a dem house member from Oregon.Remember you heard it first from Rusty.
O.K.,thats enough for tonight.The Mrs wants me to fire up the barby...grilled lamb chops and spinach salad....with a nice red Zinfandel from Sonoma.
I actually considered voting for Barr. He was strong on a) getting us the hell out of Iraq and b) civil liberties (that, and I considered McCain "Bush on steroids" and Obama "Bush Lite"). I couldn't quite pull the trigger, though.
Grilled spinach salad sounds...interesting? :)
My vote during the primary for Edwards was based on his stand on the issues. It had nothing to do with certain aspects of his personal life that were, at the time, unknown by public.
In particular I admired him for his vow to end poverty in 30 years, his "College for Everyone" initiative, and his universal health care plan.
I'm not at all embarrassed to have voted for Edwards. I wouldn't have brought it up if I were.
Oregon? Don't you mean Ohio Rusty? Republican Ohio State Rep (and married father) Robert Mecklenborg was recently pulled over by the police, failed a DUI test, had a stripper with him, and was found to have Viagra in his system.
I honestly can't stand creepy Repub hypocrites. Now that he's stepped down perhaps Ohio voters will do the smart thing and vote for a Democrat to fill his seat.
Bob Barr Will? So, on one hand you say you'd support an income tax of up to 40 percent, and on the other hand you considered voting for a candidate who wants to abolish the income tax entirely?
And I seriously doubt Bob Barr supports the Ezekiel Emanuel health care system you say you're in favor of.
Let me explain something to you, wd. In my opinion, all of these guys are a mixed bag. And when I do vote, a lot of who I vote for really depends on the issues that are pressing at the time. At that time, I was really concerned about the ever expansive role of the Federal government; especially in regards to war-making. Barr, for all of his other warts, was extremely solid in that regard.
WD: Can you find a link of support or anything to connect Barr to the Emanuel health care plan? I'd be interested to see it.
Rusty asked: "What would you rather I call him dmarks?"
Jon Edwards was far and away the most immoral evil-minded person running, as the ongoing explosion of scandals shows. He made his riches lying in the courtroom, including his famous false and lucrative claim that OB-GYNs are guilty of causing genetic birth defects. He had no qualms about destroying the careers of good doctors.
He was also bad on the issues, favoring more frivolous lawsuits, for turning healthcare into an unaccountable monopoly.
The Emanuel health care plan amounts to a universal health care, which, being a Libertarian, I assume Bob Barr would oppose. I have no link.
Do you have a link (to a non-biased source) that backs up your claims about John Edwards? They sound utterly ridiculous. You say he "made his riches lying in the courtroom", which I presume means he WON cases. Obviously the judge and/or jurry disagreed that he was "lying" or presenting false information. Also, how can an OB-GYN cause a GENETIC birth defect? I don't need to do any research to determine that this claim is totally bogus.
John Edwards would assert no such thing; because it would be completely impossible to win a case based such an obviously nonsensical claim (conclusion: it's a made-up story).
John Edwards is a flawed human being (as most of us are) who did wrong by his wife but was RIGHT on the issues.
"Frivolous" are how those who favor rule by the wealthy elites refer to lawsuits wherein patients injured by careless doctors seek compensation for their injuries. I'm a strong supporter of trial lawyers and their efforts to obtain justice for the "little guy".
"Also, how can an OB-GYN cause a GENETIC birth defect? I don't need to do any research to determine that this claim is totally bogus."
Yes, the claims WERE totally bogus. Yes, they were made-up stories. That is how he got rich.
From North Carolina Tentmaker: "What lawyers in general and John Edwards specifically did in North Carolina was he sued doctors when the damages were no fault of their own. Edwards specialized in suing OB doctors when children were born with birth defects. The result was that most of the OB doctors moved out of our state. A lot of hospitals closed down and many of the ones open now will not deliver babies. Those that do still deliver babies have to hold very expensive insurance policies to settle with the lawyers. That of course results in higher costs for the consumers."
I have personally dealt with an OB-GYN who was paranoid of frivolous lawsuits when he delivered a child with a genetic birth defect. There is absolutely no quote needed around "frivolous" when these suits are against people who didn't do anything wrong.
I have nothing against trial lawyers unless they lie and victimize innocent people. One of the worst outrages is when a greedy person chose to spill hot coffee on their own lap, and she found an attorney unethical enough to present courtroom lies blaming innocent people for this.
If a lawyer were to sue a doctor for delivering a baby with a GENETIC birth defect the lawyer would lose. I do not believe the tale you have spun concerning John Edwards and DUMB juries punishing innocent doctors.
I suspect you're twisting the facts about what John Edwards did as a trial attorney just like you've twisted the facts concerning the "greedy person who chose to spill hot coffee on their own lap".
The woman was not greedy, she asked for McDonald's to reimburse her for her extensive medical bills. She did not "choose" to spill the much to hot coffee in her lap, it was an accident. Finally, the attorney wasn't "unethical", nor did he present "lies" in the courtroom.
And again you've added the bit about you personally knowing "someone" who was affected... Truth didn't buy it when you said you knew someone who had to pay union dues after being forced into a union that was brought into existence through a "secret" election...
And I'm not buying your story about "personal dealings" with an OB-GYN who is "paranoid of frivolous lawsuits".
"If a lawyer were to sue a doctor for delivering a baby with a GENETIC birth defect the lawyer would lose."
Yet, Edwards won. Do the research. It's not a tale. It happened.
"The woman was not greedy"
She was repaciously greedy. She did something stupid to herself and had the gall to ask blameless people to pay for it.
"She did not "choose" to spill the much to hot coffee in her lap"
Two corrections:
1) The coffee was not much too hot. It was the recommended temperature. In fact, the greedy woman had on many times consumed this coffee with no problems. That is, before she chose to do something stupid with it.
2) She took the lid off and squeezed it between her legs. Her choice.
"Finally, the attorney wasn't unethical, nor did he present lies in the courtroom."
No decent human being would tell falsehoods in a court of law in an attempt to game the system to steal money from blameless people to give to someone who did not deserve it. I stand by my fair description. He lied and was unethical.
"And again you've added the bit about you personally knowing someone who was affected..."
I happen to know an OB-GYN. He was not robbed and destroyed by Edwards, but he was concerned about frivolous lawsuits from the parents of children with genetic birth defects.
"Truth didn't buy it"
Truth has no idea what he is talking about
"when you said you knew someone who had to pay union dues after being forced into a union that was brought into existence through a secret election..."
Please research this also. 40,000 home healthcare workers were affected by this scandal.
"And I'm not buying your story about "personal dealings" with an OB-GYN who is "paranoid of frivolous lawsuits"."
It's your choice to act in an unintelligent and illogical fashion on this.
dmarks: Yet, Edwards won. Do the research. It's not a tale. It happened.
Why should I "do the research", you brought it up! I did ask you for a link... so where is it? You couldn't find one so you told ME to "do the research"? Sorry dmarks, the burden lies with the prosecution. Don't make the allegations if you can't back them up.
I suspect Edwards won because the facts were on his side. That would explain why the jury agreed.
dmarks: She was repaciously greedy. She did something stupid to herself and had the gall to ask blameless people to pay for it.
Her lawyer presented the facts and a jury agreed with her.
dmarks: The coffee was not much too hot. It was the recommended temperature.
No, it was too hot. The jury agreed.
dmarks: No decent human being would tell falsehoods in a court of law...
What "falsehoods"? Please explain exactly what you think the lawyer lied about.
I suggest you do your research on this before making baseless claims. The lawer did not tell falsehoods. He presented his side and the jury decided. The article I linked to previously said, "the jury felt that only 80% of the fault lay with McDonald’s, and 20% with her". They were at fault for not adequately warning her and for brewing the coffee too hot.
190 degrees was probably too hot. But, still, a person has to have enough common sense to know not to putz around with hot coffee in the car (you should certainly know not put it between your legs). And she also could have ordered it with the creamer in it. The way that I see it, this individual was at least 70% culpable.
"Why should I "do the research", you brought it up!"
You doubt me not any basis of information, but "just because". I know all about the Edwards situation, and it is clear that you had not heard of it before and are making unprepared off-the-cuff comments.
"I suspect Edwards won because the facts were on his side. That would explain why the jury agreed."
Ah. uninformed "suspicion". The facts were not on his side in these cases. Basic science: incompetant doctors do not cause genetic birth defects. I have an intense personal involvement with this issue, and you have no idea what you are talking about. At all.
I suggest you do the research. I have. You are voice "suspicion" and saying stuff that's flat out untrue.
"Her lawyer presented the facts and a jury agreed with her."
Facts? How about McDonalds having sold 12 billion cups of coffee over a long time period (at the time of the trial), with 700 burn incidents... almost all of which involved someone choosing to do something stupid with the coffee. Do the math. By any standard, an extremely safe product.
"No, it was too hot. The jury agreed."
Uninformed opinions do not prove anything. McDonalds was serving the coffee at the industry recommended temperature. After the frivolous lawsuit forced them to not serve the coffee at proper temperature, complaints about the coffee soared.
"What falsehoods? Please explain exactly what you think the lawyer lied about."
It's not what I think. It's what is true. The coffee was safe, and the "victim" spilled it herself (so no one else was to blame)
"The law"er did not tell falsehoods."
He did. That is how they win frivolous lawsuits.
"the jury felt that only 80% of the fault lay with McDonald’s, and 20% with her".
A grossly uninformed jury, as in the actual situation, the woman did it 100% herself. So how did the jury get so misinformed? How else but by a dishonest attorney?
"They were at fault for not adequately warning her and for brewing the coffee too hot.
1) McDonalds always has signs that says the coffee is hot. There, one false claim shot down.
2) McDonalds served the coffee at the correct tempature">. Another false claim shot down.
Both of these claims are untrue, and both were part of the attorney's claim. So the attorney therefore was lying. In a just world, the woman and attorneys should be in prison for stealing through use of courtroom lies.
I'm all for successful lawsuits against individuals and businesses that do you harm. I'm antirely opposed to when a person does osmething stupid and hurts themself and they go after the big pockets to try to blame someone else for their own mistake.
More re John Edwards:
from http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1166687/posts:
"...Edwards won record jury verdicts and settlements in cases alleging that the botched treatment of women in labor and their deliveries caused infants to develop the brain disorder cerebral palsy.....
...."There are some cases where the brain damage did occur at the time of delivery. But it's really unusual. It's really quite unusual," Dr. Murray Goldstein, a neurologist and the medical director of the United Cerebral Palsy Research and Educational Foundation, told the news agency.
"The overwhelming majority of children that are born with developmental brain damage, the ob/gyn could not have done anything about it, could not have, not at this stage of what we know," Goldstein stated."
The Boston Globe details how he got rich from this: "Senator John Edwards, the North Carolina lawyer running for president, built a career out of winning historic jury awards for children who suffered birth defects allegedly because doctors mishandled their deliveries -- from a record $6.5 million in 1985 to a new record of $23 million in his last trial in 1997."
I have extensive personal experience in this field and related issues. I know the UCP, and they are an authentic legitimate medical advocacy group.
Sorry, Truth 101, it's my life and I won't lie like you wish and deny my actual experiences. Send me an email if you want more information
When you have an attorney successfully convincing juries that blameless doctors caused genetic birth defects, the attorney is indeed quite contemptible.
Imagine how much better things had been if Edwards had gone after doctors who actually did bad things, instead of wasting time and destroying the lives of doctors who did nothing wrong at all.
dmarks, your own article PROVES Edwards was not "lying". The article (actually a post on a conservative message board) says, "Two new studies in 2003 further undermined the scientific premise of Edwards' cases". But your comment says he won his last case in 1997.
Obviously the medical expert testifying for Edwards in 1997 could not have known about the "two new studies" from 2003!
John Edwards isn't a doctor. John Edwards is a lawyer. He relied on the opinions of medical experts in arguing his cases. If those experts have since been proven wrong that doesn't mean Edwards lied. Unless you think he's a time traveling doctor in addition to being a lawyer.
WD: So, given the known science of the time, Edwards persecuted these innocent doctors.
Edwards didn't know about the studies from 2003. Nor did he know about any studies the other way: he saw where the deep pockets were, and fabricated a case from thin air and effectively lied and bamboozled.
Edwards simply had no idea what the situation was, so he fabricated the lie that the doctors did something wrong and ran with it. Because for a man like Edwards, you don't get rich for telling the truth or fighting for justice.
Still waiting for Edwards to pay back the money....
As for "actually a post on a conservative message board", I usually do try to find more balance sources.
Do you? Your comments on Will's most recent post have you supporting an arugment not with facts (Steve Winn) but with opinions from a leftist political campaign site.
I don't think Edwards "fabricated" anything. He found "experts" whose opinions helped his clients. In other words, he did his job better than the defense attorneys.
Jerry Critter: I don't think Edwards "fabricated" anything. He found "experts" whose opinions helped his clients.
Exactly. dmarks seems to think Edwards is a doctor as well as a lawyer. As for paying the money back... that's not the way it works. The cases were decided based on the information available at the time.
Regarding my use of information from Media Matters... there was no opinion in the Media Matters article. All they did is point out something Steve Wynn said later on... after the "wet blanket" comment Steve Wynn went on to say "We had a great first quarter, the best in our history".
Is Steve Wynn biased against Steve Wynn? Did Steve Wynn lie about what Steve Wynn said? Since the answer to both of those questions is NO, I see no issue with my link to Media Matters.
wd doesn't believe in personal responsibility, dmarks. In his paradigm, we're all the victims (emphasis on this word) of some highly conspiratorial corporate power elite and the government bureaucrats/labor unions/trial attorneys consistently have to come to our rescue. It's almost as if it comes out of a frigging comic book, for Christ.
So, the way WD paints it.... without the benefit of actual science, but without any evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the doctors, Edwards pushed forward with a baseless case and destroyed careers and greatly profited.
Seems rather similar to one of the old fashioned medieval witch trials.
"Exactly. dmarks seems to think Edwards is a doctor as well as a lawyer"
Actually, Edwards was playing doctor. He pushed his false and ignorant claims of what went on against the doctors' valid medical experience. He bamboozled the jury with this. As Jerry said, he did do his job better than the defense attorneys, who made the major mistake of telling the truth.
"As for paying the money back... that's not the way it works"
Well, Edwards did get away with this scam (and laughed all the way to the bank), but other scams have definitely caught up with him. And it seems here that Will and I are the only ones concerned that good doctors who committed no malpractice had their careers ruined, and hospitals had to cough up $$$ (thus making healthcare more difficult and expensive). At least we aren't defending the bad guy.
Will: ... government bureaucrats/labor unions/trial attorneys.
I'm well aware that the wealthy elites want to do away with the institutions and groups that protect the rights of the common man.
I think what's straight out of a comic book is Will's naïve belief that ordinary schmos can face off against the wealthy elites and resolve their disputes on a level playing field. We don't have the power that comes with money.
All we have is the power that comes with numbers. The wealthy elites want to take that away by convincing the gullible that they need to stand alone and take "personal responsibility".
Your treatise that "government bureaucrats/labor unions/trial attorneys" actually help the common man is exceedingly debatable. I mean, just take a look at the 6,000 CT state employees who just got sold down the river by a bunch of fat, lazy, stupid union stooges.
"...he did do his job better than the defense attorneys, who made the major mistake of telling the truth"
So, the malpractice insurance companies defending these doctors hired incompetent lawyers to defend their policy holders, is that what you want us to believe? Sounds like more of an indictment against the insurance companies than an indictment against Edwards.
And look at the millions of Americans being sold down the river by the republican politicians.
Will: I mean, just take a look at the 6,000 CT state employees who just got sold down the river by a bunch of fat, lazy, stupid union stooges.
Are you talking about your post "Throw Out the Little Ones, Pan Fry the Big Ones"?
If so I already pointed out to you that Union leadership approved the new contract! So how the HELL can you say workers were "sold down the river by a bunch of fat, lazy, stupid union stooges". (all the ad hominems don't help your case at all, btw).
Your OWN POST points out that it was the union members that voted down the contract. Were you hoping that I'd forgotten?
Yes, these institutions are flawed. That is because they are made up of human beings and human beings are flawed. That doesn't mean we throw the baby out with the bathwater. We work to improve these institutions, we don't dismantle them!
You pointed out nothing, wd. I conceded in that text that the leaders of the union DID accept the agreement. Not only that, I commended them for it. It was the 20-30 year deadwood that voted the agreement down and it is THEM that I direct my anger.
Will: It was the 20-30 year deadwood that voted the agreement down and it is THEM that I direct my anger.
WTF? You wrote, "take a look at the 6,000 CT state employees who just got sold down the river by a bunch of fat, lazy, stupid union stooges".
Did you forget?
Yes, and it's the 20-30 veterans who I'm referring to as blankety blankety blank. They're the ones who did all the frigging selling.
OK, I am confused here, Will. Is it the 20 to 30 year "deadwood" that voted down the agreement, or is it the 20 to 30 year "deadwood" that made the agreement that subsequently got voted down by the rank-and-file union members?
Jerry said: "Sounds like more of an indictment against the insurance companies than an indictment against Edwards."
Whatever... regardless, Edwards pushed forth with a false case, victimized innocent people, got rich from it, and never looked back.
Will said: "Your treatise that "government bureaucrats/labor unions/trial attorneys" actually help the common man is exceedingly debatable."
Very debatable, especially when unions take away people's rights and bully people into giving campaign donations against their needs and interests. I guess that the vast majority of workers who say "union no" aren't the "common man" or worth defending.
Or when trial attorneys get rich by presenting false cases that punish people for doing their job right. I guess good doctors don't count as a "common man" worth defending.
"unions take away people's rights and bully people into giving campaign donations against their needs and interests"
That sounds a lot like the way corporations act, except they don't bully people, they ignore people. After all, in a corporation the employees have no say in how it is run or what they do with their money.
dmarks: Very debatable
It isn't debatable at all. It's a fact that these are the organizations that defend the middle class and working poor.
dmarks: especially when unions take away people's rights and bully people into giving campaign donations...
None of those things happen. They're both falsehoods spread by Right-wingers. Unions do use some of their money for election activities, but that is to promote labor-friendly candidates, which is in the best interest of the union members.
dmarks: I guess that the vast majority of workers who say "union no" aren't the "common man" or worth defending.
This is the way it should be. If a worker in an open shop says "union no", he shouldn't benefit from union representation. Unfortunately the law FORCES the union to represent all workers (even non-members) in an open shop environment.
I think the best solution would be to abolish Right to Work (for less) laws.
Jerry Critter: That sounds a lot like the way corporations act ... in a corporation the employees have no say in how it is run or what they do with their money.
Not only that, Jerry, but the Shareholders (the OWNERS of the corporation) have no say in how the corporation spends money on political activities!
I do not believe corporations (or unions) should be able to spend money on political activities at all, but so long as they are legally able, the LEAST the law should require is that money spent by corporations on political activities is put to a vote by the stockholders.
dmarks supports this for unions and opposes it for corporations (or so I gather based on his past remarks). Why? I'm guessing it has something to do with his desire that we be ruled by the wealthy elites.
Post a Comment