Wow!!!!!

[Jimmyeatworld]

I'm just going to throw my two cents in, for what it's worth.

I thought Edwards did okay, better than I thought he would, but I still think Cheney won pretty handily. It was just a classic case of teacher and pupil. Cheney has been doing this for a long time and Edwards found out that standing up in a court room is far different than what he participated in last night. I do find some of the spin today pretty funny, though.

 

[fuzzykitten99]

Trespassing? Wow, you have the sense of humor of...Dick Cheney. It was a joke. Come on, have a sense of humor, he does look and sound like a grumpy old man. But apparently you have something against young, sleek, silky men running for holding higher office. Sounds like you are prejudice to me.

you joke sucked. You think it's funny because you are poking fun of him because you have nothing better to do, and not much more of an argument.

besides, you are the one that said you were afraid of him yelling at you to get off his lawn. what would you have been doing on it in the first place?

you are the one that says he looks like a grumpy old man. So? Edwards looks like he would sue you for a dollar. He's TOO flawless in his looks. I don't trust people who look like him. I also don't trust lawyers that sue doctors and ARE a part of the problem of medical costs going up because of frivolous malpractice suits. Ones like what Edwards used to prosecute for.

you don't get it. your stupid joke brings your true feelings to light. you prefer young over old. I don't really give a rat's ass. Cheney to me looks like a professional politician. Edwards, well...he has a "sharp, useless look about him".

 

[UsaPride]

I also don't trust lawyers that sue doctors and ARE a part of the problem of medical costs going up because of frivolous malpractice suits. Ones like what Edwards used to prosecute for.

Did he ever answer the question about frivolous malpractice suits? He was muttering something, but I honestly have no idea what his answer was. Something about 3 strikes you're out if you file a frivolous lawsuit. I'm not sure what he was getting at. Anyone know?

 

[fuzzykitten99]

Did he ever answer the question about frivolous malpractice suits? He was muttering something, but I honestly have no idea what his answer was. Something about 3 strikes you're out if you file a frivolous lawsuit. I'm not sure what he was getting at. Anyone know?

he said something on how he wants to have a system in place to monitor these types of suits...basically more government spending on stupid shit that is not needed.

You could see the look on Cheney's face when asked if he thought Edwards was a part of the problem. I would have had to hold in the "Damn Straight" myself if I had been in Cheney's place, though I don't know if I really would have had the power. Cheney was mature, but I would have laughed my ass off if he had said yes.

 

[Trinity]

Did he ever answer the question about frivolous malpractice suits? He was muttering something, but I honestly have no idea what his answer was. Something about 3 strikes you're out if you file a frivolous lawsuit. I'm not sure what he was getting at. Anyone know?

Something about if a lawyer files 3 friviolous lawsuits then they will no longer be able to file anymore lawsuits. Is what I got.

 

[Trinity]

Did anyone catch the part where Cheney was talking about the medicaid issue and all the loopholes, like the one Edwards was able to use to get out of paying $600,000.00 into the medicaid system. Funny Edwards didn't have a response for that, only a gulity look on his face!

 

[nakedemperor]

you joke sucked. You think it's funny because you are poking fun of him because you have nothing better to do, and not much more of an argument.

you don't get it. your stupid joke brings your true feelings to light. you prefer young over old. I don't really give a rat's ass. Cheney to me looks like a professional politician. Edwards, well...he has a "sharp, useless look about him".

I don't CARE what they looked like! It was a JOKE. If you'd read the entirety of my first post, I said that Cheney WON. "Not much more of an argument"? You assume I was 'arguing' that Edwards won by retorting with 'Cheney's a grumpy old man'? I was NOT arguing that, I was AGREEING with you. You're so unceasingly partisan that you were blind to that fact and assumed my satire (obviously too subtle for your finely tuned deductive reason skills) was my only 'argument' for why Cheney had lost.

You're the one who whose 'true feelings' are coming to light. I personally couldn't care less what a politician looks like. You, on the other hand, have formed a judgement of Edwards which is not satire; you literally believe that you've made an effective character judgement on both Cheney and Edwards on account of their looks. That's mature. :baby:

 

[fuzzykitten99]

Did anyone catch the part where Cheney was talking about the medicaid issue and all the loopholes, like the one Edwards was able to use to get out of paying $600,000.00 into the medicaid system. Funny Edwards didn't have a response for that, only a gulity look on his face!

*Haircut & Style for the debate: $500.00
*New suit for the debate: $5000.00
*New executive-style, gold plated pen for the debate: $150.00
*The look of your face after your opponent brings up your using every loophole to pay fewer taxes including $600,000 worth of Medicare on national tv, after you say you are going to roll back the tax cuts for those that make more than $200k/year: Priceless
There are some things money can't buy, such as credibility and reliability. For everything else, there's SheisterLawyer-Card.

 

[fuzzykitten99]

I don't CARE what they looked like! It was a JOKE. If you'd read the entirety of my first post, I said that Cheney WON. "Not much more of an argument"? You assume I was 'arguing' that Edwards won by retorting with 'Cheney's a grumpy old man'? I was NOT arguing that, I was AGREEING with you. You're so unceasingly partisan that you were blind to that fact and assumed my satire (obviously too subtle for your finely tuned deductive reason skills) was my only 'argument' for why Cheney had lost.

You're the one who whose 'true feelings' are coming to light. I personally couldn't care less what a politician looks like. You, on the other hand, have formed a judgement of Edwards which is not satire; you literally believe that you've made an effective character judgement on both Cheney and Edwards on account of their looks. That's mature. :baby:

Keep trying.

 

[-Cp]

*Haircut & Style for the debate: $500.00
*New suit for the debate: $5000.00
*New executive-style, gold plated pen for the debate: $150.00
*The look of your face after your opponent brings up your using every loophole to pay fewer taxes including $600,000 worth of Medicare on national tv, after you say you are going to roll back the tax cuts for those that make less than $200k/year: Priceless
There are some things money can't buy, such as credibility and reliability. For everything else, there's SheisterLawyer-Card.

ROFLMAO!!

 

[onedomino]

Last night we saw the best spokesmen for their respective tickets. I wish they were the presidential choices. Edwards had the tougher assignment because he had to defend Kerry's incoherent policy positions. Both men scored during the debate. I greatly preferred Cheney's positions on the issues.

Regardless of who wins on 2 November, watch out for Edwards in the future.

 

[wade]

Did he ever answer the question about frivolous malpractice suits? He was muttering something, but I honestly have no idea what his answer was. Something about 3 strikes you're out if you file a frivolous lawsuit. I'm not sure what he was getting at. Anyone know?

Yes. Under Bush's thinking the way to stop "frivolous lawsuits" is to cap the awards. This is absolute hogwash. All this does is prevent legitimate lawsuits from having any real effect. It means companies will know the extent of their liability ahead of time, and therefore can choose to undertake business decisions that are against the public good as long as the profits outweight the possible judgement maximums. This will do little if anything to stop "frivolous" lawsuits because most such lawsuits seek a settlement well below the maximums that will be set. What it does is benefit big business without providing any real relief for most of the victims of such lawsuits.

Under the plan Edwards laid out, lawsuits would be subject to a prior review, before the could even be considered for settlement. If they do not have merit, they would be rejected and the lawyer(s) involved would be fined. If the lawyer(s) submitted more than 2 rejected lawsuits over some period of time, they'd be barred from futher submission of such lawsuits. This plan would indeed greatly reduce "frivolous" lawsuits which mostly seek a quick settlement motivated by the defendants desire to avoid unpredictable jury rulings, but it would not prevent legitimate lawsuits from having the desired effect - encouraging companies to act in the interest of the public good to protect themselves for legitimate rulings which can potentially bankrupt them.

A lot of the discussion had to do with medical malpractice. Well, I've seen the medical industry from the inside. When I was at Duke Univerisity Medical Center (on a research contract) there was a case involving an older, very well connected doctor. He performed a colostomy, AND SOWED UP THE WRONG SIDE OF THE INTESTINE, AND CONNECTED THE SIDE LEADING TO THE RECTUM TO THE COLOSTOMY BAG. The patient of course died within a few days. When the cause was found at autopsy, he tried to cover it up and would have succeeded except for some nurse dropped a dime on him.

Now this doctor probably should not have been doing surgery anymore, as he was in his very late 60's or early 70's, and was known to have a drinking problem. Why should there be any limits on the ability of the patients family to sue the Doctor and the hospital in a case like this?

Right wingers talk about responsibility all the time - well isn't the whole purpose of civil lawsuits to make people and companies responsible for the consequences of thier actions?

Wade.

 

[wade]

Did anyone catch the part where Cheney was talking about the medicaid issue and all the loopholes, like the one Edwards was able to use to get out of paying $600,000.00 into the medicaid system. Funny Edwards didn't have a response for that, only a gulity look on his face!

Chapter S corporations were not a "loophole", they were part of the tax code and served a legitimate purpose. By the way, this was something the Republicans put in the tax codes to encourage small businesses in the 80's, it was part of Reagan's tax plan.

The chapter S corp concept was to give some of the advantages of incorporation to what were in effect sole proprietorships and/or small partnerships. And the money was still paid into social security and medicare, but it was paid on the private side of the paycheck, and subject to the limits therein.

Wade.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

I loved the put down about being in the Senate every tuesday and this was the first time he ever met Edwards.

Watch Edwards eyebrows the more he lies the higher they rise.

Blinking a lot is the first sign of a lair.

Too bad they met at least as early as 1 Feb 2001.

Who's the liar again?

 

[fuzzykitten99]

Too bad they met at least as early as 1 Feb 2001.

Who's the liar again?

could it be that Cheney forgot about that breakfast thing? I mean, it was early into the Presidency, and even though he called him by name, MAYBE he knew him by face because he was the new guy. Shit, I have relatives that I have met before, maybe once, and if I were to see them again, I DOUBT that I would remember who they are, and if I had ever met them before. It's not like the function that they met at was a private Cheney/Edwards gathering. Or, did Edwards leave out a tidbit of information...did he maybe have a badge or something with his name on that Cheney used? This is entirely possible.

I am just betting with Cheney forgot about something minor that happened OVER 2 YEARS AGO.

Can you remember the names, faces, dates, and times that you meet new people? If you can, wow.

 

[Bonnie]

Chapter S corporations were not a "loophole", they were part of the tax code and served a legitimate purpose. By the way, this was something the Republicans put in the tax codes to encourage small businesses in the 80's, it was part of Reagan's tax plan.

The chapter S corp concept was to give some of the advantages of incorporation to what were in effect sole proprietorships and/or small partnerships. And the money was still paid into social security and medicare, but it was paid on the private side of the paycheck, and subject to the limits therein.

Wade.

Yes Wade I know all about S corps, and it has encouraged small businesses, nothing wrong with that, however Cheney was not putting Edwards down for that, but rather the hypocracy associated with those who make lots of money, use the tax shelters available, then turn around and point fingers at those who make a lot of money and are accused of not paying "their fair share"..........

Kerry and his wife made millions and paid only 12% for that fortune in taxes, then Kerry turns around and wants to tax small businesses even more???????? Yeah Right!!

 

[fubar]

You want a good reason to vote for Bush?

Kerry wins, then has a stroke, jetskiing accident, sniper , or is arrested for being a total asshole. And Edwards becomes president.

 

[wade]

Yes Wade I know all about S corps, and it has encouraged small businesses, nothing wrong with that, however Cheney was not putting Edwards down for that, but rather the hypocracy associated with those who make lots of money, use the tax shelters available, then turn around and point fingers at those who make a lot of money and are accused of not paying "their fair share"..........

Kerry and his wife made millions and paid only 12% for that fortune in taxes, then Kerry turns around and wants to tax small businesses even more???????? Yeah Right!!

Kerry and his wife paid the taxes as determined by out tax codes. Since that income was mostly divident income, it was taxed at the capital gains tax rate. Kerry knows his tax changes will cost him $, but he still intends to implement them because he believes it's the right thing to do.

It is not unreasonable for a person to utilize the tax shelters that are available and legal, and at the same time seek to have those shelters removed in the pursuit of fairness.

Wade.

 

[Merlin1047]

could it be that Cheney forgot about that breakfast thing?

Sounds reasonable to me. Edwards is such an insignificant little weasel that I can see where one would easily forget he was in the room - especially given the fact that most political gatherings are peopled by boot licking suck-ups with pasted on smiles.

 

[Mr. P]

Sounds reasonable to me. Edwards is such an insignificant little weasel that I can see where one would easily forget he was in the room - especially given the fact that most political gatherings are peopled by boot licking suck-ups with pasted on smiles.

And just because they were in the same room, doesn't mean they "met".