Edwards!
 

I just decided who I want to run for president in '08.

John Edwards.

I just caught him on the Daily Show, and man... Funny, witty, liberal, smart, charming, and damn good-looking, for a (former) congressman.
In other words, everything Bush isn't.

Obama or Edwards ftw!

I couldn't agree more. I think Edwards was hands down the way to go in the last election... but I don't see him running again. At least I don't see him running again in the near future. Now my personal favorite is Obama. I think he has a lot to say, but I really hope race or other issues don't come into play. I think he could be a truly great leader.

:D He's slick...;) Welcome to the Cellar, Brady.

WHOA, I'm honoured, I actually drove someone to sign up and post!

I'm liking the Obama, too.

Ibram, you're just a cellar magnet!

The sad thing is, even after driving people to sign up, breaking the 2000 post mark, and sticking around for seven months, I still feel like a n00b.

Maybe it has something to do with the forum being older than me.

It'll feel worse when you find out you're not a n00b, trust me. ;)
"Sh*t, I'm not the youngest guy around anymore! Aaaagh!"

Oh, and Obama is great n'all, but what the hell has he done?

Ibram, your maturity far surpasses many of the older Cellarites, including me!

He was also on Charlie Rose last night -- this time with a blue tie instead of the red one he wore on Daily Show.

But he is quite refreshingly articulate and amazingly transparent -- and I mean the latter in a good way, I think.

I wonder if the Secret Service will visit him after his "Seat of Heat" question...

Post, yes. Sign up, no.
(belated) Welcome brady_44. Don't make us wait for another year to hear from you again, though, please.

Based upon the recent elections, I think the Democratic candidate will win no matter who it is, except Billary Clinton. So all you Democratics need to choose very, very carefully. The republicans will have to do something truly amazing to get anyone reelected and Condi is certainly not gonna do it, so they'll probably toss out another "lamb to the wolves" like Dole, for the '08 elections.

Another "great thing" about the 2-party system: "place-holder" candidates.

I'm sorry, but John Edwards is a fraud. He has a hokey southern accent and all folksy and stuff around his contituents in NC, but get him on the Daily Show and he's a completely different person. Plus, he's a personal injury attorney by trade, so how trustworthy can he really be?

My vote is for anyone who isn't a democrat or a republican.

Huh? That's exactly how he was on the Daily Show last night.

If you see him in a public appearance in NC, he's even more folksy and such. You have to be on his "turf" to see him at his best.

Hallo brady!

Thanks melidasaur, glad to know I have company. I love being an independent.

Hey whats Perot doin?

(Flint - pic please)

little man - BIG Bankroll

I guess I wouldn't put "like that, but more so" in the camp of "completely different person."

He's a personal injury attorney!!! what more needs to be said?!? :Lol:

Have you actually "said anything" yet?

Politicians < Personal Injury Lawyer.
Therefore, Edwards would be a step up.

What's wrong with behaving differently in front of different audiences? I don't speak to my friends the same way I speak to my parents, or my boss, or y'all.
As long as the content of the message is the same, who cares about vernacular?

Cardinal rule of public speaking: Know Thy Audience.

I guess that line lost its appeal for me after, during the campaign, he got derided as a "jacuzzi lawyer" for successfully suing a pool pump company for a product that sucked the intestines out of children.

Goddamn that ambulance chasing motherfucker! How dare these so-called lawyers right wrongs on our behalf!

But seriously, if you don't want to get sued by a personal injury attorney: don't injure anybody. Either through your negligent business practices or otherwise. Here in Texas we have Tort Reform, yay! Now big business has virtually no incentive to care about whether we are injured or killed by their attempts to maximize profits. Right. It's about business practices. And, it's about whether "the little guy" has any protection, IE lawyers. They make it hurt, in the pocketbook, when you do wrong. And that's the language that gets things done. Take that away and we're fucked.

This should make you wonder where the anti-lawyer rhetoric really comes from.

I guess I don't appreciate public figures that have to talk differently to different audiences. Just talk as you normally do and be yourself.

For the record, I did live in North Carolina for 5 years and was one of his constituents, so I do have a right to complain about the fakeness of his folksy aires. If he is a folksy person normally, then he should act like that all the time. I've seen him pull the old switcharoo - folksy one minute, and not so much the next.

I talk to everyone in the same manner, so I guess it does bother me. I don't change things up for different audiences. The message, mode and delivery is always the same.

Being a lawyer myself, I don't like those who practice in the field of personal injury. I feel that they:
1) Exploit people's stupidity - always making a mountain out of a mole hill - of course coffee is hot!
2) Clog the court system with ridiculous law suits
3) Really stress the need for tort reform.

So those are my thoughts.

Now if he ran today, he'd probably win, but not with my vote.

if you want to see a knock down drag out put clinton/obama vs mccain/guiliani vs lieberman/colin powell. it won't happen, but it would be fun to watch.

How was it that Kerry won the Democratic nomination in 2004? I was kind of blindsided by that and couldn't figure out how he became the frontrunner. It seemed like he won Iowa somehow, and all the Dems said "he can beat Bush!", and suddenly he was the Democratic candidate.

What was it that I missed, anyway?

a) Changing style of language and delivery depending on audience is called code-switching and is engaged in by most people at some time; one of the noticeable aspects of interraction amongst illiterate or under educated people is an inability to effectively codeswitch: this leads people to speak in their usual slang/dialect even when it's inappropriate, ie a defendant in court who makes a poor showing of themself because they cannot adopt a more formal language style in an environment where they may be discriminated against for not doing so. You say you don't code-switch, I suspect you actually do. Most of us do it without ever realising we are doing so. It's an automatic response to certain stimuli. Some people do it very consciously, particularly those who make their living through public speaking.

b) Just because a lot of lawyers practising in the field of Personal Injury claims are sharks, does not mean being a Personal Injury Lawyer makes one a shark. There are many very dodgy and unscrupulous lawyers working in the field of divorce, criminal defence and fraud cases, but there are also many who do their job well. If there was no need for Personal Injury lawyers one would wonder why anybody might follow such a profession; alas there patently is a need given that many people are injured through the negligence of companies. There's a big difference between helping someone whose child has been crippled or disfigured get justice and reparations, and someone persuading an unhurt crash victim that they have whiplash.

What happens, though, is that damage caps increase the number of lawsuits . Rather than being able to try big cases, and get big paychecks, these guys have to generate alot more small cases. More cases, clogging the system: what you complained about, made a reality, by tort reform.

The problem is that too many people see it as an opportunity to get money for nothin - they should get a grip and learn to be responsible for their own actions. There is no perfect system - Utopia doesn't exist.

Which is not my experience. Problem was not too many people seeking a windfall profit. Not to many court cases. Problem was that we in jury were denied basic facts to assign a numerical value to a judgment. As a result, the judgment was set by auction bidding - number kept increasing until no one submitted a higher number.

I was appalled. Having been denied historical facts; having been denied even court testimony in the jury room, then those who can only reply with logic were then silenced. Those who just know from their feelings would bid that settlement higher.

It amazes me that some immediately assume jury verdicts result only from greed. Again, where are 'their' numbers and facts? Without those numbers and facts, then one starts by saying, "I have not a clue". But just like in that jury room and just like on Rush Limbaugh, speculation is represented as fact.

One fact I did observe - we were shorted information massively so that a number based in logic and historical precedent was not possible.

Thank you! I did not know that term. Interesting! :)

How can you possibly put a numerical value on a limb, an eye or the ability to think, act, walk and so on. Its impossible. The next step would be to say that an artists limb is more valuable than a non-artists. All of this creates a situation that is untenable. There is no clear answer, no solution, nor can there be.

That's exactly what Tort Reform does. It says: a human life, etc. cannot be worth more than X amount, so conduct yourselves accordingly. If working with that limb was part of an income they have lost the ability to generate, then it is more valuable by exactly that amount.

Thats the problem - you would increase it by "exactly what amount?" How can you say I wouldn't have needed it or increased my earnings in the future with that appendage?

If you cannot put a value on a limb, eye, etc then you are no where near as ruthless as I am. Think about that for a minute when you consider that, here, I have been called a liberal.

If you cannot put a number on something, then only emotion and chaos results. We even have a number for the value of an average human life. If you are an emotional type, then you don't like it. Too bad. That ruthlessness is also called reality.

Stop using emotion for logic. Everything has a value. That is not disputable. The more difficult part is finding that value. And there is why the jury room needs historical precedents, facts, written testimony, and the many other things necessary to quash emotion.

To tell me that "it is impossible" is ... well you also ran away from another discussion when I asked "what is the purpose of war". I call that being a quitter or too emotional to be trusted. It is not impossible. It is only difficult. If it was impossible, then burn down the courts; they have no purpose.

A reasonable number can be applied only if logic prevails. And yet the jury room cow towed to emotion. Others even represent personal assumptions into hype – such as people only sue for windfall profits. We were not even permitted courtroom testimony in that jury room. Everything was based only on personal recollections. That is a room ripe for decision only based in emotions.

Well, it's a hard problem, there's no easy answers. I'm just sayin' I don't think capping damages helps the situation.

Um, Excuse me? Who the fuck do you think you are and what the fuck is your problem? I don't believe in an actual value on either:
1) A human life
2) A limb, vision or whatever.
Its not an emotional response. Its my belief. I'm certain that there is an amount of "monetary compensation" to which someone will agree in order to drop a lawsuit. That has nothing to do with what I am saying. You state your opinions or thoughts and I'll do the same. I disagree with you - thats all and "assigning monetary values" on limbs or physical pain just makes it easier for all you lawyers and the system.
You scumbags will simply know whether or not to take a case beforehand cuz you will already know what your commission will be. And then the poor slob who was actually injured will only get whatever is left after you bleed him dry with fees and shit on top of it. Like $50 to mail an effin letter or $35 to send a freakin fax???? Fuck you - and the broom you rode in on.

You are again posting words only posted by the emotional: Of course everything has value. Do you think a life in Darfur is worth more than a life in North America? Reality - and whether you like it or not. A life in Darfur has a value far less than a N American life. You need not like it. But that is only an emotion. Reality: the world does so little to protect a Darfur life. Why? Every life has a value.

You want to change it? Then do something that makes the Darfur life worth more. Increase his value to make it worthwhile to save him. And no, that does not even mean spending money. Value increases simply with an intelligent solution. Currently a life in Darfur has so little value, in part, because no viable solution exists.

An opinion also has value. When your opinions arrive full of emotional tirades and without supporting facts, then your opinion goes to the clearance rack. Again, it is reality. Things have quantitative value - even human life. Using such disparaging adjective tends to lower another quantitative value - your credibility. Sorry. Just reality - without emotion.

my one and only interaction with personal injury lawyers was when i was part of a mock jury, hired (unknowingly) to be the guinea pigs for the attorneys. they went through there case against the state of arizona, showing us photos of auto accidents with fatalities and blah blah blah. in the end they said the state's choice in median barriers caused like 12 deaths (number is hazy with time) during a number of years. they wanted money from the state for these families.

they got seriuosly pissed off when several of us jurors asked why the families were due a single penny from the state. every single accident was caused by excessive speed and/or alcohol. their point was that people died and somebody needed to throw some money at the families and the state seemed the most reasonable.

BS. people died, it was a tragedy, move on.

That is not an emotional response?
Wow... I sure would like to see one if that is your idea of logic and reason.:D

I was in the insurance industry for a long time. You have to come to some conclusion at some point, that is the fact.
You have to be truthful about what is a reasonable amount for both parties and what will set precedent for others in the same situation and how it will affect all others tied to the businesses involved for the long run.
Otherwise, a few will profit and the majority will suffer... end of story, no matter how you try to put empathy into the argument for one side/story alone. It cannot be looked at that way.
That is where it ends... the facts.

I recognize the reality that as a society we have assumed some set values for some things, but let me ask you this - How much is your childs life worth to you? Are you really saying that for X amount of money you would be satisfied or amply compensated for the loss of your childs life due to someone elses negligence? Does it matter what grades he/she got or what activities or sports he/she played? You gotta be kidding me.

If corporation X can save .005 pennies per unit by using a cheaper material, that also makes their product slightly less stable, slightly more dangerous, and they do so with the full knowledge that this will increase the risks of death or injury in the consumer by a specific amount, the they have put a price on your child's life.

If politicians put damage caps on lawsuits, taking away the threat of financial punishment to the corporation, and making it more profitble for them to produce less safe products, then they have put a price on your child's life.

It isn't a choice you get to make, they make it for you (so there's no purpose in your feeling squeamish about it, it's out of your hands). The only question is: do you want it to be easy for them to keep harming people? Do you want them to knowingly profit from the death of your child, or someone just like you? Or, do you want to make this happen less often, by having the ability to strike back when wrong has been done?

Edwards is Farked this morning with a story about how his staff tried to convince a local Walmart to get them a PS3 early. Unfortunately for Edwards, the Walmarters remembered that Edwards is anti-Walmart. This is heads-up PR by Walmart, who then gets to craft the following release and get publicity. They're very good at this:
It's pretty much a non-story for Edwards, who can clearly claim it was the staffer's doing, but it's a funny turnaround nevertheless. Meanwhile PS3s are $1421 at Walmart. Good god.

the end times are upon us...
 

For pete's sake...I was all excited I might get a PS2 with my coke rewards points, but they sold out too.

Anyway, I think games have lost so much playability since the older days. Give me Commander Keen any day!

(Hey, I did it!) :)

I agree - that is MY point also - They cannot be allowed to lessen the burden of those responsible. However, there must be equally stiff penalties for those who attempt to abuse the system.

Sorry, I've been trying to figure out what you were getting at.
This is the common justification for Tort Reform, hence my confusion. What different kind of meaures do you suggest?

My son wanted me to wait in line all day yesterday and all night so that we could buy one and then sell it at a profit so we could buy new furniture for our new place. I almost agreed too. Then again maybe I should have. These game prices are nuts - what ever happened to pong anyway?

Well, that sounds like a noble cause..... but not reality.
Personal injury cases don't seek and punish the guilty, they seek the money. Edwards sued the pool drain cover company because he knew there was little chance of a big payout by suing the municipal workers that installed the cover improperly. A jury is more conservative in awarding big bucks from a local community and it's local workers than from faceless evil corporations.

Another case I know personally. A plumbing company wins a contract to install the sprinkler system in a Philly high rise building. The system is designed by the architect, approved by the city code dept and installed as designed. After installation, it's inspected and tested by the general contractor, city code inspectors, and then again by Factory Mutual, an agent for the insurance industry to protect their risk in insuring the building.

Several years later there is a fire on a high floor in which three firemen tragically die.
The General contractor was no longer in business as it in common practice to dissolve after each project is finished. The insurance company paid the building owners the maximum of their liability. The building owners filed bankruptsy.
Who gets sued? The plumbing company, even though they did absolutely nothing wrong.
Again, it's harder to get millions from the city than a faceless corporation.

My disdain for personal injury lawyers is not what they do basically bad, but the way they do it is all about the money and justice be damned. They drive the cost of doing business, sky high. That's why a simple item like a lawn mower, chainsaw or ladder, things impossible to make idiot proof, are more expensive than they should be. :cool:

How did the case turn out? Did the jury rule against an innocent party? If so, shame on the jury.

Yes, they bankrupted the plumbing company with an huge award.
When you parade the children of three dead fireman, the jury melts. :(

That's an unfortunate result of people favoring their emotions over their intellect. It sucks, but this is how people are encouraged to be.
It's the source of so much that is wrong. But it's one of those "what are you gonna do?" things. I hate it, every time it rears it's ugly head.

Perhaps limit the amount of money they can award in damages? :rtfm:

What if the cap were a percentage of the defendant's assets, rather than a fixed dollar amount?

And then we have the complete opposite. In the Beverly Hills Supper Club fire where hundreds died, the Governor’s report blamed the victims for their deaths. The club was bankrupt and no money to compensate the victims. Then an attorney took up the case pro-bono. That is only when we learned about the aluminum wiring, installation in violation of standard practice, etc. So the lawyer went after the electrical contractor, the builders, others who did not really understand the danger, etc. Although they did not get much, at least the victims got some compensation because the lawyer did same thing.

Meanwhile we learned about this disaster being created all across the nation in aluminum electrical wire. Done only because price of copper had increased. Done without any consideration for high risk to human life.

Those in Cincinnati well know about the Beverly Hills Supper Club. Many who don't should learn why the Kentucky state investigation blamed the victims for their own death AND why a lawyer used those same tactics to bring justice. For all we know, that lawyer may have saved your life.

Fixed dollar amounts are the way Tort Reform is done, at least in Texas, where you and I live. And it doesn't improve the quality of cases, it increases the quantity. More cases are the opposite of what Tort Reform advocates preach, so it just doesn't make sense.

I should add that my uncle is a personal injury attorney. Not the boogey-man you see on daytime TV, but a decent, professional man that serves a legitimate purpose in society that has been crippled by Tort Reform.