PATRIOTIC DISSENT IS A LUXURY OF THOSE PROTECTED BY BETTER MEN THAN THEY.
Originally posted by: Kal-
SS, this is really reaching to portray as an example of a man wanting to take away something from the people. If it was him threatening our rights it would be one thing, but a threat to take away overpaid Congressmen's health benefits really doesn't matter.
Originally posted by: -=NHB=- BananahandsOriginally posted by: Kal-
SS, this is really reaching to portray as an example of a man wanting to take away something from the people. If it was him threatening our rights it would be one thing, but a threat to take away overpaid Congressmen's health benefits really doesn't matter.
Its not that it would be terrible for us to take away rich congressman's healthcare its the principle of the thing. Ohh well Edwards and his 400 dollar haircut dont have to worry about doing it because he is never going to win.
Originally posted by: -=NHB=- Bananahands
he is never going to win.
Originally posted by: Kal-Originally posted by: -=NHB=- Bananahands
he is never going to win.
Are we talking about Edwards or any one of the Republican candidates?
Originally posted by: [-NM-] -SS-
O. RLY.
So what's next John? Where will you stop when it comes to taking away things from people? Just another example of a person trying to expand the powers of the administrative branch not granted in the Constitution. Guess it isnt only Bush...
Just listen to the dumbfucks in the crowd eat it up not realizing how dangerous this statement is.
Get to work spinmiesters, haha.
Originally posted by: [-NM-] -SS-
......dont get all pissy cause I call you out for being a deceptive piece of shit...Too bad it is such a challenge for you to be a better person. I know I would never trust you in combat or when it counts. The bottom line is that you have no honor and you arent the "good person" you attempt to perpetrate on these forums with threads about "mom and dad" or your kids while you purposely fuck up threads about men who's lives are in the balance over accusations of murder and rape. The very men you just said you appreciate - yeah right. You're garbage aria. No class at all.
Originally posted by: questionmark
do you really care about politicians losing benefits that they wont even give all americans or did you just feel like shittalking john edwards?
Originally posted by: TX_Lord SkeletorOriginally posted by: questionmark
do you really care about politicians losing benefits that they wont even give all americans or did you just feel like shittalking john edwards?
Are you insane? YOU DO *NOT* have a RIGHT TO HEALTH CARE. PERIOD. You DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT to own a home. YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT to free meals. YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT to see a dentist if you can't afford to. You do have the privilege of receiving stabilizing emergency medical care--regardless of your financial situation, but that's it. It certainly SHOULDN'T be a RIGHT, whatsoever.
While a nice idea to perhaps think of...the real world doesn't work in such a fashion. Somebody has to pay for it.
That somebody is the American taxpayer. Taking things from one group of people and redistrbuting (GIVING IT AWAY) to other people is just plain criminal. Period. Life isn't fair...it isn't supposed to be. If you want health care...go out, get a decent job and EARN MONEY TO PAY FOR IT; or find a decent job that offers health care as part of an employee package.
Originally posted by: Aria Giovanni.pZOriginally posted by: [-NM-] -SS-
O. RLY.
So what's next John? Where will you stop when it comes to taking away things from people? Just another example of a person trying to expand the powers of the administrative branch not granted in the Constitution. Guess it isnt only Bush...
Just listen to the dumbfucks in the crowd eat it up not realizing how dangerous this statement is.
Get to work spinmiesters, haha.
well, i actually agree with this....
if members of congress had the same pension (none) and same health insurance benefits as most americans, they would get off their asses and fix the situation.
their pensions are too fat and their health benefits unique.
leaders with the same benefits as the people...imagine that. would that be a democracy? where the people are lead by....people like them?
Originally posted by: anarchist-Originally posted by: -=NHB=- BananahandsOriginally posted by: Kal-
SS, this is really reaching to portray as an example of a man wanting to take away something from the people. If it was him threatening our rights it would be one thing, but a threat to take away overpaid Congressmen's health benefits really doesn't matter.
Its not that it would be terrible for us to take away rich congressman's healthcare its the principle of the thing. Ohh well Edwards and his 400 dollar haircut dont have to worry about doing it because he is never going to win.
not stumping for Edwards here...but does the price of his haircuts have anything to do with anything?
Originally posted by: questionmark
do you really care about politicians losing benefits that they wont even give all americans or did you just feel like shittalking john edwards?
Originally posted by: Kal-
SS, this is really reaching to portray as an example of a man wanting to take away something from the people. If it was him threatening our rights it would be one thing, but a threat to take away overpaid Congressmen's health benefits really doesn't matter.
Originally posted by: W. B. Yeats
Earth looks like this:
Not this:
Originally posted by: Raden1911Originally posted by: anarchist-Originally posted by: -=NHB=- BananahandsOriginally posted by: Kal-
SS, this is really reaching to portray as an example of a man wanting to take away something from the people. If it was him threatening our rights it would be one thing, but a threat to take away overpaid Congressmen's health benefits really doesn't matter.
Its not that it would be terrible for us to take away rich congressman's healthcare its the principle of the thing. Ohh well Edwards and his 400 dollar haircut dont have to worry about doing it because he is never going to win.
not stumping for Edwards here...but does the price of his haircuts have anything to do with anything?
When the candidate is running on the platform of class envy, it shows a lot. Edwards is one of the people they should be envious of.
Originally posted by: RacheliOriginally posted by: Raden1911Originally posted by: anarchist-Originally posted by: -=NHB=- BananahandsOriginally posted by: Kal-
SS, this is really reaching to portray as an example of a man wanting to take away something from the people. If it was him threatening our rights it would be one thing, but a threat to take away overpaid Congressmen's health benefits really doesn't matter.
Its not that it would be terrible for us to take away rich congressman's healthcare its the principle of the thing. Ohh well Edwards and his 400 dollar haircut dont have to worry about doing it because he is never going to win.
not stumping for Edwards here...but does the price of his haircuts have anything to do with anything?
When the candidate is running on the platform of class envy, it shows a lot. Edwards is one of the people they should be envious of.
Mmhmm, it's called "political rhetoric" and that's exactly what he's spewing. There is a sector of the voting public who unfortunately will lap up his argument of Us vs. Them when in fact HE is one of "them" not "us" with his lil $400 haircut.
I'm not a fan of giving away what I earn but I do think all of us have somewhat of a responsibility to assure that basic human needs of our citizens are met. We did a pretty good job of that until the insurance industry got its claws into the healthcare industry.
Originally posted by: [-NM-] Pudd¿nheäd
i have no clue how this rhetoric even comes close to the actual actions of those in power now in regards to usurping the power of government and becoming emperor-like.
this comparison seems to be quite far-fetched at best.
Originally posted by: [-NM-] Pudd¿nheäd
john edwards won't get my vote by any means, dont like him very much really.
Originally posted by: Raden1911
It was ambulance chasing attorneys such as John Edwards who caused doctors to have millions in malpractice insurance, and raised the costs of all medical treatment for everybody. The healthcare industry couldnt survive with people such as John Edwards making millions off of them, without pooling their resources into insurance companies.
Originally posted by: ViperXOriginally posted by: Raden1911
It was ambulance chasing attorneys such as John Edwards who caused doctors to have millions in malpractice insurance, and raised the costs of all medical treatment for everybody. The healthcare industry couldnt survive with people such as John Edwards making millions off of them, without pooling their resources into insurance companies.
Except that that's totally false. You know what turns out to be a much better predictor or rising malpractice rates than increasing lawsuits or lawsuit awards? Insurance companies having an off year with their investments. Many states have capped awards, contributory negligence, etc etc etc. So called "jackpot judgments" are exceedingly rare, but they worked well as smoke screen as evidenced by your posts.
BTW, which of Edward's cases did you find distasteful?
Originally posted by: Raden1911Originally posted by: ViperXOriginally posted by: Raden1911
It was ambulance chasing attorneys such as John Edwards who caused doctors to have millions in malpractice insurance, and raised the costs of all medical treatment for everybody. The healthcare industry couldnt survive with people such as John Edwards making millions off of them, without pooling their resources into insurance companies.
Except that that's totally false. You know what turns out to be a much better predictor or rising malpractice rates than increasing lawsuits or lawsuit awards? Insurance companies having an off year with their investments. Many states have capped awards, contributory negligence, etc etc etc. So called "jackpot judgments" are exceedingly rare, but they worked well as smoke screen as evidenced by your posts.
BTW, which of Edward's cases did you find distasteful?
I will debate you on this. I spent years working in the insurance industry, and I know for a fact that insurance companies, at least in the state of North Carolina, can not raise rates across the board without approval from the commissioner of insurance. To do so, they have to show where they suffered a huge loss due to payouts on claims, not on investments.
Originally posted by: Kal-Originally posted by: Raden1911Originally posted by: ViperXOriginally posted by: Raden1911
It was ambulance chasing attorneys such as John Edwards who caused doctors to have millions in malpractice insurance, and raised the costs of all medical treatment for everybody. The healthcare industry couldnt survive with people such as John Edwards making millions off of them, without pooling their resources into insurance companies.
Except that that's totally false. You know what turns out to be a much better predictor or rising malpractice rates than increasing lawsuits or lawsuit awards? Insurance companies having an off year with their investments. Many states have capped awards, contributory negligence, etc etc etc. So called "jackpot judgments" are exceedingly rare, but they worked well as smoke screen as evidenced by your posts.
BTW, which of Edward's cases did you find distasteful?
I will debate you on this. I spent years working in the insurance industry, and I know for a fact that insurance companies, at least in the state of North Carolina, can not raise rates across the board without approval from the commissioner of insurance. To do so, they have to show where they suffered a huge loss due to payouts on claims, not on investments.
Which Edwards case(s) did you find distasteful? I think Viper is onto something here and I'd love for you to answer his question. Judging from the way you speak of Edward's past I'd assume you were some sort of authority on the subject so listing off some cases and providing an explanation should be neither tiresome or difficult.
Originally posted by: Raden1911Originally posted by: Kal-Originally posted by: Raden1911Originally posted by: ViperXOriginally posted by: Raden1911
It was ambulance chasing attorneys such as John Edwards who caused doctors to have millions in malpractice insurance, and raised the costs of all medical treatment for everybody. The healthcare industry couldnt survive with people such as John Edwards making millions off of them, without pooling their resources into insurance companies.
Except that that's totally false. You know what turns out to be a much better predictor or rising malpractice rates than increasing lawsuits or lawsuit awards? Insurance companies having an off year with their investments. Many states have capped awards, contributory negligence, etc etc etc. So called "jackpot judgments" are exceedingly rare, but they worked well as smoke screen as evidenced by your posts.
BTW, which of Edward's cases did you find distasteful?
I will debate you on this. I spent years working in the insurance industry, and I know for a fact that insurance companies, at least in the state of North Carolina, can not raise rates across the board without approval from the commissioner of insurance. To do so, they have to show where they suffered a huge loss due to payouts on claims, not on investments.
Which Edwards case(s) did you find distasteful? I think Viper is onto something here and I'd love for you to answer his question. Judging from the way you speak of Edward's past I'd assume you were some sort of authority on the subject so listing off some cases and providing an explanation should be neither tiresome or difficult.
Keep assuming Kal, and keep making an ass of yourself in the process.
Originally posted by: Kal-Originally posted by: Raden1911Originally posted by: Kal-Originally posted by: Raden1911Originally posted by: ViperXOriginally posted by: Raden1911
It was ambulance chasing attorneys such as John Edwards who caused doctors to have millions in malpractice insurance, and raised the costs of all medical treatment for everybody. The healthcare industry couldnt survive with people such as John Edwards making millions off of them, without pooling their resources into insurance companies.
Except that that's totally false. You know what turns out to be a much better predictor or rising malpractice rates than increasing lawsuits or lawsuit awards? Insurance companies having an off year with their investments. Many states have capped awards, contributory negligence, etc etc etc. So called "jackpot judgments" are exceedingly rare, but they worked well as smoke screen as evidenced by your posts.
BTW, which of Edward's cases did you find distasteful?
I will debate you on this. I spent years working in the insurance industry, and I know for a fact that insurance companies, at least in the state of North Carolina, can not raise rates across the board without approval from the commissioner of insurance. To do so, they have to show where they suffered a huge loss due to payouts on claims, not on investments.
Which Edwards case(s) did you find distasteful? I think Viper is onto something here and I'd love for you to answer his question. Judging from the way you speak of Edward's past I'd assume you were some sort of authority on the subject so listing off some cases and providing an explanation should be neither tiresome or difficult.
Keep assuming Kal, and keep making an ass of yourself in the process.
My point exactly. You make bold statements on subject you don't know any better than the next under-educated dumbfuck roaming the internet.
Oh and some examples of Edwards' distasteful career as a lawyer would just be super.
Originally posted by: Raden1911Originally posted by: Kal-Originally posted by: Raden1911Originally posted by: Kal-Originally posted by: Raden1911Originally posted by: ViperXOriginally posted by: Raden1911
It was ambulance chasing attorneys such as John Edwards who caused doctors to have millions in malpractice insurance, and raised the costs of all medical treatment for everybody. The healthcare industry couldnt survive with people such as John Edwards making millions off of them, without pooling their resources into insurance companies.
Except that that's totally false. You know what turns out to be a much better predictor or rising malpractice rates than increasing lawsuits or lawsuit awards? Insurance companies having an off year with their investments. Many states have capped awards, contributory negligence, etc etc etc. So called "jackpot judgments" are exceedingly rare, but they worked well as smoke screen as evidenced by your posts.
BTW, which of Edward's cases did you find distasteful?
I will debate you on this. I spent years working in the insurance industry, and I know for a fact that insurance companies, at least in the state of North Carolina, can not raise rates across the board without approval from the commissioner of insurance. To do so, they have to show where they suffered a huge loss due to payouts on claims, not on investments.
Which Edwards case(s) did you find distasteful? I think Viper is onto something here and I'd love for you to answer his question. Judging from the way you speak of Edward's past I'd assume you were some sort of authority on the subject so listing off some cases and providing an explanation should be neither tiresome or difficult.
Keep assuming Kal, and keep making an ass of yourself in the process.
My point exactly. You make bold statements on subject you don't know any better than the next under-educated dumbfuck roaming the internet.
Oh and some examples of Edwards' distasteful career as a lawyer would just be super.
And what pray tell do you know of insurance law in North Carolina?.....that is what I thought. So yet another example of an arrogant, assuming, uninformed troll roaming the internet.
And it is no secret that Edwards made his fortune suing insurance companies. If you have evidence that disputes this, then please present it. Otherwise, stfu.
Originally posted by: Kal-Originally posted by: Raden1911Originally posted by: Kal-Originally posted by: Raden1911Originally posted by: Kal-Originally posted by: Raden1911Originally posted by: ViperXOriginally posted by: Raden1911
It was ambulance chasing attorneys such as John Edwards who caused doctors to have millions in malpractice insurance, and raised the costs of all medical treatment for everybody. The healthcare industry couldnt survive with people such as John Edwards making millions off of them, without pooling their resources into insurance companies.
Except that that's totally false. You know what turns out to be a much better predictor or rising malpractice rates than increasing lawsuits or lawsuit awards? Insurance companies having an off year with their investments. Many states have capped awards, contributory negligence, etc etc etc. So called "jackpot judgments" are exceedingly rare, but they worked well as smoke screen as evidenced by your posts.
BTW, which of Edward's cases did you find distasteful?
I will debate you on this. I spent years working in the insurance industry, and I know for a fact that insurance companies, at least in the state of North Carolina, can not raise rates across the board without approval from the commissioner of insurance. To do so, they have to show where they suffered a huge loss due to payouts on claims, not on investments.
Which Edwards case(s) did you find distasteful? I think Viper is onto something here and I'd love for you to answer his question. Judging from the way you speak of Edward's past I'd assume you were some sort of authority on the subject so listing off some cases and providing an explanation should be neither tiresome or difficult.
Keep assuming Kal, and keep making an ass of yourself in the process.
My point exactly. You make bold statements on subject you don't know any better than the next under-educated dumbfuck roaming the internet.
Oh and some examples of Edwards' distasteful career as a lawyer would just be super.
And what pray tell do you know of insurance law in North Carolina?.....that is what I thought. So yet another example of an arrogant, assuming, uninformed troll roaming the internet.
And it is no secret that Edwards made his fortune suing insurance companies. If you have evidence that disputes this, then please present it. Otherwise, stfu.
The difference is I don't portray myself to be some expert on North Carolina's insurance laws or John Edwards' past. I need concrete proof to make a judgment on these things and I'm asking you to supply me with the information you used to make your conclusions. Thus far you've been unable to provide this so I have to call your statements into question.
It was once 'no secret' that the world was flat. It was also 'no secret' that the Earth was the center of the universe. Common knowledge doesn't mean shit without proof.
Originally posted by: Kal-
I just want the facts that show Edwards made his career unjustly targeting insurance companies. That's what you've portrayed him as doing, where is the proof?
A guy could make a living for 50 years suing insurance companies and if he did so justly there isn't a single thing wrong with his actions.
Originally posted by: Raden1911Originally posted by: Kal-
I just want the facts that show Edwards made his career unjustly targeting insurance companies. That's what you've portrayed him as doing, where is the proof?
A guy could make a living for 50 years suing insurance companies and if he did so justly there isn't a single thing wrong with his actions.
Unjustly in this case is a matter of opinion, and not provable in either way. I will however accept your apology with regards to my knowledge on NC insurance law.
Originally posted by: Kal-Originally posted by: Raden1911Originally posted by: Kal-
I just want the facts that show Edwards made his career unjustly targeting insurance companies. That's what you've portrayed him as doing, where is the proof?
A guy could make a living for 50 years suing insurance companies and if he did so justly there isn't a single thing wrong with his actions.
Unjustly in this case is a matter of opinion, and not provable in either way. I will however accept your apology with regards to my knowledge on NC insurance law.
So it isn't provable that Edwards's was an 'ambulance chaser' looking to unjustly sue insurance companies. Sure makes your original argument go to hell.
Originally posted by: Raden1911Originally posted by: Kal-Originally posted by: Raden1911Originally posted by: Kal-
I just want the facts that show Edwards made his career unjustly targeting insurance companies. That's what you've portrayed him as doing, where is the proof?
A guy could make a living for 50 years suing insurance companies and if he did so justly there isn't a single thing wrong with his actions.
Unjustly in this case is a matter of opinion, and not provable in either way. I will however accept your apology with regards to my knowledge on NC insurance law.
So it isn't provable that Edwards's was an 'ambulance chaser' looking to unjustly sue insurance companies. Sure makes your original argument go to hell.
Actually, my original argument was that John Edwards was part of the rich class that he is trying to create class envy against. It was later that the whole ambulance chaser item came up.
But, since you insisted, here is the research.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/copland200401260836.asp
"The untold story of Edwards's candidacy is that Edwards may have built his fortune in part by relying on the very sort of "junk science" medical-malpractice lawsuits that have created a health-care crisis in no fewer than 19 states. Some of Edwards's biggest wins including a jury verdict of $6.5 million (reduced to $2.75 million on appeal) and a settlement of a reported $5 million came from cases suing doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies over infant cerebral palsy allegedly due to botched deliveries.
Yet as my Manhattan Institute colleague Walter Olson has documented in the Wall Street Journal and on his website overlawyered.com, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, in a comprehensive study released last year, determined that delivery problems were not to blame for cerebral palsy in the "vast majority" of cases. Cerebral palsy is instead typically caused by factors beyond the doctor's control, such as maternal thyroid problems, genetic abnormalities, or prenatal infection."
Sounds like an ambulance chaser to me.
Originally posted by: Kal-
I still don't see any clear cut, definitive proof there. Not to mention your choice of source is interesting. Would you read 'The Nation' for fair information on a Republican? Nope, just like I wouldn't read National Review for honest information on a Democrat.
Tell me, were you one of those dunces who thought the whole Swift Boat thing was truthful too?
Originally posted by: Raden1911Originally posted by: Kal-
I still don't see any clear cut, definitive proof there. Not to mention your choice of source is interesting. Would you read 'The Nation' for fair information on a Republican? Nope, just like I wouldn't read National Review for honest information on a Democrat.
Tell me, were you one of those dunces who thought the whole Swift Boat thing was truthful too?
And with this reply I am done with you, because you have again proven that you dont want to debate an issue, but rather resort to personal attacks. Edwards got rich sueing insurance companies on junk science. He pulled heartstrings of jurors. There was no clear cut evidence of wrongdoing by the doctors, hospitals, or insurance companies either, but that didnt stop Edwards from making millions off them.
Edwards was against tort reform and caps on punitive damages. To be expected, considering how he made his money. This guy is campaigning on class envy, when he is one of the rich. Also, if he is so for the poor man, then why did he serve on the board and invest millions in hedge funds that dealt in sub-prime loans, and have foreclosed on many of them? He blasts sub-prime lenders in his campaign speeches, yet had approximately 16 million invested in a company who dealt in sub-prime mortgages.
http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/09/paper-fortress-.html
He was one of the Senators from my state, and instead of doing his job, he was trying to get elected vice-president. His voting record in the last year and 1/2 of his term shows more missed votes than votes cast.