Printable View
Not a good debate by any means.
Edwards wasn't as powerful as Kerry was last Thursday, but at the same time Cheney was boring (not to mention bored: he was constantly staring at the table in a daze) and just looked unhealthy, lazy and utterly worthless.
Discuss.
Thats because Cheney is unhealthy, lazy, and worthless. He was exactly the same way at the RNC, he completely deflated an audience that was all pumped up and riveted and ready to go after Miller's speech.
This one is a bit of a tougher call then the Presidential debate. Unlike Bush, Cheney is a better speaker and had no problem expressing himself, but Edwards also did a very good job of expressing his points. I have to say, I was a little biased towards Edwards in this debate. I don't like Cheney at all and think he is an absolute sleeze bag. I thought Edwards had many good points and did a pretty good job of explaining what he and Kerry planned to do while all Cheney did was try to crititcize Kerry and Edwards over insignificant matters. Also, I'd rather hear what the Bush adin plans to do rather then Cheney's past records. I'm also sick and tired of hearing the Bush admin criticize Kerry for changing his mind on the war. I want to know how the hell this is a bad thing. It's one thing to be certain about something, but when you get new facts and find out you were wrong, you need to admit instead of keep on going in thw wrong direction. Kerry needs to speak up about this, which he did a bit in the presidential debate, but they need to louder about it. Cheney mentioned how Kerry was a flip floper and then immediately said that he himself and changed his thoughts on lifting sanctions on Iran. Now going by the Bush admin, wouldn't this be flip flopping? It's just this kind of shit that makes me hate the Bush admin.
All in all though, I'd say this was a close call for the both of them. Cheney was very confident and didn't seem to waver on any of his points, but neither did Edwards. I think Edwards was a bit more respectable and was more focused on talking about important matters while Cheney was just trying to talk trash about Kerry/Edwards. For this debate, if you like Edwards then he won and if you like Cheney he won.
DarkCrow, youre talking like this stupid debate matters.
Uhh Kery has flipped on his position in Iraq. His inconsistence and waffling on the topic spells doom for his campaign.Quote:
I'm also sick and tired of hearing the Bush admin criticize Kerry for changing his mind on the war.
He has said that he wouldve still authorized force. He has said that the war was wrong. He has said that saddam needed to be stood up to. Etc.
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news...IBP8&refer=us#
Contrast this with the idiotic, Dean-esque mud-slinging on the Iraqi quagmire that his campaign has been pooping out as of late.
Anyway, there is only one thing regarding the Iraq War he has been consistent on: he believes there should've been some sort of international alliance. Which is a reasonable belief, I suppose. I dont agree with it, and its clear that Germany and Russia and France would not have went along with anything (how do I know this? They have said they wont help out even if Kerry gets elected, so much for his dreams of the worldwide coalition). But whatever.
I know it doesn't, just saying my thoughts on it though.Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
Why are this positions in oposite to each other? He said THE war is wrong, not a war.
Gotta give it to Cheney. Ah damn, right from the beginning, all I thought about was I soooo wanted to swap Bush for Cheney to go up against Kerry for the next one. He got wounded on Haliburton, like those attacks weren't coming, but I thought he was confident, clear, sharp, etc. Just came across well overall. Dude was prepared unlike Bush and his stumbling performance.
Edwards did the puppy eyes "I feel your pain" bit at times. It used to be convincing, but now comes off as contrived. He held his own, though. Strong performance on both sides.Well, he was great today, I thought. I agree about the RNC; he bored me there, especially after Miller. Hell, everyone was forgettable before and after Miller.Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
Their positions are NOT opposite, durr. Kerry is just trying to portray that to get left-leaning voters. If Kerry were to get voted in very little would change wrt to the war in Iraq, I guarantee it. And Kerry has even said that he wouldve voted the same way even if he knew then what he knows now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mman
Him and Bush simply have exactly the same position on the war, Kerry is just using his fancy, Yalie, Skull & Bones education and pedigree and debate skills to hide it.
I don't see how changing his opinion on the war is a bad thing? If you could give one simple explanation on how this is wrong then by all means I'll agree with you but since when has changing your mind when new facts are revealed a bad thing. Kerry was for the war when we were told by the president that Iraq had WMD's, which has yet to be proven. With this information, who wouldn't agree to disarm Iraq. But when the facts came to light that Iraq did not have WMDs, that changed things. We went into this war prematurely and on false information. Is this a war we should be in? Hell no, but since we are already nose deep in this shit, we need to continue until we can get ourselves out. And another thing, if this is all about dissarming countries that are a threat with WMDs then why the hell aren't we in Iran or North Korea.Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
DarkCrow, he has continued to "change his mind" after the "new facts came out". Like, okay, originally his position was X. Then, after "new facts came out". his position was Y. Kinda. There were times when it was X again. Now it's Y... but itll probably be X again next week.
In any case, like I said, it doesnt matter, him and Bush are exactly the same on this issue, but if Kerry were to flat-out admit that, it would be suicide for his campaign - but taking a firmly different stance would probably be suicide too. So he hasnt done either, and we're left with this flaky, confusing, inconsistent message.
The debate?
Zzzzzzzzzzz
Dick Cheney is old.
That is all.
I listened to the first half hour on the radio, and Cheney absolutely destroyed Edwards. Without question. Not only did he debunk all of the stupid-ass claims from the Democrats, but he also put Edwards on the defensive. I turned it off when Edwards started repeating himself for the third time.
Well, there's only so much that can be done in Iraq.
Media folks were apparently calling this debate Darth Vader vs. Robin - I like it. Personally, I'm suprised all the pundits are calling it a draw. I thought Cheney was given many opportunities to respond to things Edwards said and just passed because he had nothing to say. He spent half the debate talking into his chest, and he kept wringing his hands and doing the Mr. Burns "excellent" hand gesture. Edwards appeared more in control of the proceedings.
Nobody landed a killshot, but then nobody did in the 1st presidential debate either. But the only time I thought Cheney really scored on Edwards was on his senate attendance record. Edwards certainly waffled on a few responses, but less than Cheney by my count, and he was much quicker on the draw and more engaging. And the somewhat silly spectre of terrorists with plutonium suitcases walking through New York came up way too many times.
Maybe my horrible English has confused you (and for this I apologize) but I meant the various positions you listed by Kerry. How are they in opposition to each other. I could give a fuck about the difference between the two. And if I am going to pick between 2 guys from Yale I sure as hell am going to pick the one that can use some of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
I totally missed that. What did he debunk? I saw him flat-out lie about the Iraq terrorist connection. When everyone in your own defence department and party who aren't speaking "on message" say there wasn't a connection, you should probably drop the subject.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkRyan
Oh no! That would be flip-flopping, and nothing is worse than admitting that you may have fucked up. Better to just stick to your lie in the face of disaster.Quote:
Originally Posted by StriderKyo
One I recall was Edwards insisting (at least twice after Cheney refuted it) that Cheney said there was a connection between Iraq and 9/11--he never said that.Quote:
Originally Posted by StriderKyo
And it's zero lie that Iraq was harboring a known terrorist (Al-Sadr or Al-Zarqawi? I forget which). The 9/11 Commission Report, which everyone uses as "proof that they lied", states so clearly.
I'd much rather have Cheney for a president than Bush. I feel his idea of how to deal with Tort(sp?) reform is much more realistic than kerry's and he is a lot less black and white when it comes to the issue of gay marriage than Bush.Quote:
Originally Posted by NightWolve
Even if he is a slime ball he makes more sense than Bush, and his goals come off as much more realistic than Kerry's.
You're kidding, right? They said Saddam was funding Al Qaeda several times leading up to the war. Both Bush and Cheney's stump speeches have them saying every single day that "we went to Iraq to take on the terrorists on their home turf" - despite Al Qaeda's membership being almost entirely from other countries who aren't being bombed because they've got heavy economic and diplomatic ties with the US. You're right, Cheney may not come out and say Saddam was behind 9/11, but you can't tell me you don't see them constantly inferring a connection.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkRyan
Al Zarqawi.Quote:
And it's zero lie that Iraq was harboring a known terrorist (Al-Sadr or Al-Zarqawi? I forget which).
Let's give it over to my man Colin Powell:Quote:
The 9/11 Commission Report, which ever uses as "proof that they lied", states so clearly.
"Mr Powell alleged that Mr Zarqawi's lieutenants were operating in a part of Iraq outside the control of Saddam Hussein but controlled by an Islamic group called Ansar al-Islam (Supporters of Islam)" Link
Id be very surprised if there are any killshots at all. Most people already know who they are going to vote for, so all the debates will be viewed in this light, and the endless amount of campaigning that both candidates are doing in Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc., will matter more to the swing voters there than a couple of silly debates on TV.Quote:
Originally Posted by StriderKyo
Yesterday's gallup poll had the race a dead heat again - both candidates with 47% among likely voters. The general consensus seems to be the first presidential debate really helped Kerry and hurt Bush - it got huge tv ratings. This election's such a big deal people seem to actually be paying attention to this stuff.
www.electoral-vote.com
This website is far more valuable than whatever the national polls say, because gasp! 47-47 doesnt matter ultimately because thats not how the prez is elected.
And the electoral countup on this site is pretty much the same as it was before I left for LA last week.
Ya know Bush is a yale man too, they went at about the exact same damn time. Wonder who spent their time better.Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/gwbbio.html
on the right hand side, graduated yale, history degree. Pedigree?
Who is George Bush Jr.'s dad for $1000 alex? Ya think Bush would be the ideal president with his background. Served in the national guard during war time, flew a fighter plane, went to yale, has a rich dad who was also president, has tons of rich friends to teach him how to use/spend money.Quote:
ped·i·gree Audio pronunciation of "pedigree" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pd-gr)
n.
1.
1. A line of ancestors; a lineage.
2. A list of ancestors; a family tree.
2. A chart of an individual's ancestors used in human genetics to analyze Mendelian inheritance of certain traits, especially of familial diseases.
3. A list of the ancestors of a purebred animal.
I wonder why he is so disliked.
Edwards is a bitch yo.
No shit. I realize that. Im simply saying that as much as Kerry tries to portray himself as for the working man, a hunter with his own guns, etc., hes just as upper-crust as Bush and thanks to his marriage he's far more wealthy.Quote:
Ya know Bush is a yale man too, they went at about the exact same damn time.
Meh Bush does the exact same shit, do i really need a link to show this? Same shit, different corporate loyalities. I like my corporate interests a little less war flavored.Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
I have a hard time believing the Heinz fortune is worth more than the Bush family oil earnings.
But, theyre both basically rich bitches trying to be down with the people.
Thats usually what politicians do...
I think this one is much harder to call. There wasn't anything to totally give it to one over the other.
Read some fact checking on MSNBC.com and it seems that quite a few lies and misleading statements were made, mostly by Cheney, so that changes my opinion of the debate a bit.
However, just from watching, Cheney definitely got more jabs in than Edwards, and his stuck more, whether true or not. The whole time I got this feeling that Cheney was that older grandfather or uncle that always treats you like you don't know anything because of your youth and relative inexperience. He talked down to Edwards through most of the debate.
Edwards did get to make some good points, though. It's just a matter of whether you agree with his viewpoint. He definitely made the case more for his prez nominee than Cheney for Bush; in contrast he just defended their administration's record.
This debate was interesting for me, as I haven't really heard these two talk much on their own before now. I've heard how Cheney was really the one running things, not Bush, and to an extent I can believe that now. I truly fear where this country would be if Cheney wasn't Bush's VP; in a twisted, roundabout way that makes me feel slightly better about where the country is.
But truth be told, your respected party will tout how they won, and you'll be closer to the truth than the first Prez debate, as it was obvious that Kerry truly one that one. While Cheney was MUCH stronger than Bush (even stronger than I expected he would be), I just don't agree with his politics enough to give him the win. I can see how others would, though.
I call it a close tie.
Did you people who voted for Edwards actually watch the debate, or is this a political swaying vote? If that were a football game, Edwards would have lost 63-7.
When did MSNBC start posting those?Quote:
Originally Posted by SonofdonCD
Diffx, if you post this in every thread on TNL that is created between now and the election, they still won't understand. I still hear idiots talking about how Gore won in 2000, even though the Florida recount verified that he did not. The popular vote is worth absolutely nothing, but 73.8% of Americans and 97.3% of Democrats are too stupid to realize that.Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
kerry's administration's idea of what tort reform is, is naive at best.
He said nothing to address one side of the pressure on Doctors, and his idea of having a group of people to approve lawsuits was laughable.
If that is as much thought as they have put into making things better for Doctors I really hate to see their plans for the healthcare system in the US.
You know what would fix this problem? Passing something that only let Lawyers get 5% of the money won in a malpractice lawsuit. You'd get more people doing it because they thought it was right, and less people doing it to get rich.
Of corse, I wasn't surprised by Edwards lame ass idea for Tort reform. He IS a trial lawyer. He can cry all he wants about saving the children of the world, but I have my doubts EVERY ONE of his past cases were like the one he talked about today.
My sarcasm meter isn't working, but on the off-case you were actually serious, here it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Today's achewood sums up the debate pretty well.
http://www.the-nextlevel.com/board/a...id=12089&stc=1
The New York Times has a good article on how both sides have strecthed the truth (surprise, surprise) during the debate.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/06/po...gn/06fact.html
I meant facts. MSNBC tends to avoid those and rather stick to their opinions.Quote:
Originally Posted by SonofdonCD
Wel, unless you can prove that these are in fact opinion and not facts, I'll take their word for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
I'm not daring you, BTW, cause if you do have other facts that are truthful that contradict the MSNBC link I gave, by all means place it here.
It's just that blanket statements like yours don't make me automatically believe them. Actually they tend to have the exact opposite effect.
She probably fell asleep too....?Quote:
Originally Posted by RedCoKid
Bush strikes me as someone who would be a complete failure in life if not for his (frequently employed) name and hook-ups, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
Just read it. First of all, the story is a repost from the Moscow, er, Washington Post. The second paragraph totally fails to make its point. They are claiming that Cheney misled by saying that the administration never said that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. The story says that he "skated the issue". The truth is that they never did say it. Even within the story itself they never show any proof that it was said, only that Cheney had said that Atta had met with Iraqi officials. The whole point is bullshit and typical of the Washington Post. And it's typical of MSNBC to run stories from a shit source like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by SonofdonCD
Cheney himself did say that Saddam Hussien was involved in the attacks, on Meet the Press, the Daily Show played the clip months ago, and I saw it again yesterday. I forget the quote verbatim, but it was like 'Saddam Hussien was working with Al Qaeda'Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Find that quote, because not even Edwards or the Washington Post could.Quote:
Originally Posted by dave is ok
When I get home, I'll find the video clip.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
EDIT: I cant watch this right now, but I think this might be it.
http://www.the-nextlevel.com/board/s...k+cheney+lying
To your last comment, Edwards was actually very careful in choosing his cases to avoid the whole "ambulance chaser" image. That said, looking at his record as a lawyer, you could say he only went after high profile cases.Quote:
Originally Posted by IronPlant
I recently heard a lawyer talking about the high price of law these days. For a decent chunk (if not majority) of malpractice cases, they don't get paid unless they win. So all the research they do into prior cases, into company records, etc. come out of their pocket with no guarantee of winning in court and getting paid. That's part of the reason for the big awards.
Take that, and then the fact that the insurance companies have some of the best and most highly paid lawyers in the industry and the deck is automatically stacked against the people who actually deserve compensation from doctors and hopsital systems that have caused them or their loved ones injury.
Bad shit still happens in hospitals. A employee of the company I work for contracted a bad flu 2 years ago. He went into Emory University Hospital, one of the best in the Southeast. He had fluid in one of his lungs. They tried to drain the wrong lung, and collapsed it. They fixed the lung, drained the proper one, then puntured it. Next, they didn't properly maintain his bandages and he got a staph infection. The guy still has to drag an oxygen tank around with him everywhere he goes to this day. He consulted with several lawyers and found that he'd be waiting at least 3~4 years for a lawsuit to conclude. He had neither the time nor energy to pursue that.
My point with that little story is shit still happens. Insurance companies would love nothing more than for it to become more difficult to sue them. I guarantee that even if the Repulican based tort reform bills passed (limiting awards to $250,000) that malpractice insurance rates would not decrease that much.
Are there too many malpratice suits and inflated awards out there? Yes. Putting a blanket limit on all potential victims isn't necessarily the answer though. Plus, limiting the payout to lawyers @ 5% of the award to encourage the lawyers who are out to help others (and not themselves) won't work; That'd leave 9 lawyers in the US to take care of all these lawsuits. :)
As to the debate, Cheney did a hell of a lot better than I expected. To the point that I'd say he may have won. Edwards was not on his game last night, IMO. Both men cited plenty of twisted facts (wouldn't be a debate without that), and both got some barbs into the other. It was nice to see Cheney respond with a simple "thank you, Sen. Edwards for your kind comments on my family." That was amazingly humanizing for Darth Cheney. I love Edwards, but last night, I was not very impressed.
Probably my favorite part of the night was when Cheney invoked a website I suggest everyone frequent, www.factcheck.org. (Although he called it factcheck.com). The best part was he said articles on the site show what Edwards was saying about Haliburton were false, when in actuality, they back Edwards up. :) Kerry/Edwards need to let go of the $200 billion figure though. It's funny math they can't defend. Not the best debate in the world, but it could have been worse, I suppose.
Speaking of Cheney mentioning Factcheck.com (instead of factcheck.org), looks like someone decided to capitalize on the mistake:
Quote:
Financier George Soros already has billions in the bank, but the move he just pulled today is priceless! You may remember our favorite moment in last night's debate -- when Cheney asserted he didn't have time to bore listeners with a defense of his actions as CEO of the corrupt Halliburton Corp., but that viewers could get all the info by clicking on a Web site: "Factcheck.com."
The episode was the ultimate metaphor for Cheney's twisted relationship with the truth. The Web site he was apparently trying to tout -- you never know with these guys -- is actually factcheck.org, a non-partisan political information site run right here in Philly, by the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg School of Communications. The Cheney misinfo led thousands of viewers to a site that didn't really exist.
Of course, the name -- like most viable domain names -- had been earlier snapped up by the Domain Name Sales Corp. located in the Caribbean. (Which is probably where Cheney should stash some of the millions he made at the oil-services giant).
Enter George Soros: the Hungarian-born hedge-fund genius who made billions on the American stock market, and has spent millions of that fortune on trying to get George W. Bush -- whose Iraq invasion Soros considers an outrage -- out of the White House. In recent weeks, Soros has kicked it up a notch with an anti-Bush book, a speaking tour (which stops in Philly today!), and now a highly charged, highly promoted Web site, georgesoros.com.
Well, Soros or his "people" must have been watching last night, because within minutes of Cheney's gaffe, the billionaire went out and rented the address from the good folks down in the islands. And so now, anyone who watched the debate and wants to learn more about Cheney and Halliburton, instead gets this headline:
"President Bush is endangering our safety, hurting our vital interests and undermining American values."
Funnier yet is that factcheck.com brings you to the phialntropist George Soros website and has a big headline when you enter saying "WHY WE MUST NOT RE-ELECT PRESIDENT BUSH"Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolffen
EDIT: Damn.
http://www.georgesoros.com/images/so...ader_on_01.jpg
Thank you Dick.
Fixed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
As soon as Yoshi mentioned MSNBC, I knew that some braindead liberal was going to bring up Fox News, even though nobody mentioned it in this thread, and nobody used a Fox News article as a source to prove a point.
Good job g0zen.
Damn. What Soros did with FactCheck.com is hilarious. Gotta be careful with how you cite your sources.
Nonetheless, I think it was ill-advised of Cheney to direct users to FactCheck.org, because it list articles that state contradicitions and mistruths of the Bush campaign (as well as those of Kerry's).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolffen
Medical related lawsuits in regards to tort reform are a bit more diverse than you are giving them credit for. I think we can all agree that someone should pay to help a person when and if something horrible happens to them. But the reality is that a lot of lawsuits filed are not like those.
In this day and age people sue in groups, and get in these groups regardless if they have any damages. If a pill is taken off the market and one person sues it is very common for virtually everyone to sue, even if they have had no side effects. Even worse yet, lawyers will go as far to sue people not at fault for the damages of the medication. In this types of cases it is normal to sue the pharmacist and the doctor, when all blame is obviously that of the drug maker.
Yes, I agree with you that if a doctor knowingly prescribes something they know will hurt someone they should get sued. But these doctors and pharmacist are getting sued just because they had something to do with someone else taking it.
I for one do not think that doctors and pharmacist should be punished for taking a drug manufacture at their word and thinking that something is ok. But this problem continues because lawyers know that by suing the pharmacist and the doctor they increase their chances of keeping the lawsuit in a lower court and by doing that they increase their chances of a large settlement.
I don’t really care what anyone else thinks, but it is wrong to hurt two people for doing their job. Especially when there job is to help people. What kind of message does that send?
This isn't in rare cases either. It is a normal practice. So much so that there is a county in Mississippi that the majority of it's income comes from lawsuits. There is a backlash from this that is hurting my state. This sort of stuff effects all business, and it is now hard to get any new factories to come to MS. There have been many that flat out said that the reason they are not coming was because of how badly the state needed Tor reform. These sorts of lawsuits were the deciding factor in them coming and providing new jobs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolffen
I don't really have a lot of pitty for them on that issue. Doctors have been receiving lower wages or no wages at all for medicare and medicaid patents for forever now. They put up with it for the good of the people they are helping.
Maybe Lawyers would be a little bit more eager to get this problem solved if they got payed through this manner.
As it is now many lawyers get more than 50% of the money won in a lawsuit. They can take up to 1/3 of the winnings, and THEN make the person pay fees on their services.
Tort reform is a serious problem. It isn't just a bunch of silly rich doctors crying about not being able to buy a hummer this year. It effects all business and in doing so effects everyone. It is one of the big factors in driving up the prices on the goods and services we buy every day. It is also one of the big reasons health care cost so much in the U.S.
In my own opinion Democrats would get more support from Republicans for a national healthcare system IF we got Tort reform. Many republicans do not believe in Social security and a National Health Care system because of under the current system of doing things, it could very well bankrupt the nation. The lower that SS and NHC can be made to cost, the more suport that it will get from nondemocratic parties.
The flaws with Edwards idea of Tort Reform is for one, making lawyers go through a comity to get approval only creates more red tape for those who need it. How many years could getting approval add to a court case?
Secondly, that sort of thing is open to abuse. Who decides who is on the comity? What sort of guide lines are we going to set for this?
Thirdly, this is going to be lawyers giving the reach around for other lawyers. It isn't going to be people outside the system with some form of comme sense on this comity. It will be other lawyers. People watch out for their own, and there will be slack given to those who don't deserve it.
None of the more popular tort reform bills floating around various states and Congress have had anything that addresses those problems though. The focus of those bills is normally limiting damages. While that may help the insurance companies by limiting what they payout, as well as decreasing the number of lawsuits because they won't be as profitable for trail lawyers, it also has the effect of screwing the people out of the best lawyers to prosecute their cases. And without the best lawyers they can get, they won't win against insurance companies. The bigger issue is that lawyers cost too damned much, and the vast majority aren't in it to help their fellow man, they're in it for the money (and they enjoy arguing). In a perfect world, limiting awards would in theory drive down the cost of lawyers since you'd have more lawyers competing for less money. That won't happen, or at the very least, will not happen with any meaningful speed. 1 of 2 things will happen: (1) Lawyers go back to hourly pay, which means a lot of victims will not be able to afford a lawyer, or (2) those lawyers who do care about their fellow man can no longer make enough money to stay in business AND effectively fight industry lawyers.
I completely agree that America is sue happy; that the wrong people are getting sued, that third parties are being asked to pay for someone else's mistakes when they acted in good faith. How do you protect those third parties, put a stop to frivolous lawsuits, AND still offer victims a chance for justice, and do it only through a new bill/law? Laws alone are either black and white or so full of loop holes that they do no good. And seen from a larger view, the state of our legal system, especially in regards to malpractice, is anything but black and white. What should we do? I don't know. All I know is that even if we eliminated all lawsuits against corporations, doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies, the American people would not see substantial monetary relief, as the companies would pocket as much of the income saved from a lack of lawsuits as possible, rather than pass it on to the public.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolffen
Yes and No. If you took them all away and then did not make a mandate to take it into account when setting prices for servies and goods they would most likely pocketed the extra money. If you will pay what they want now, why change?
But the government could and should force business to take it into account when setting prices. I hate big Government but even I will give on that one. Everyone is passing the price of lawsuits and red tape on to the consumer and it is hurting everyone.
Tort reform should be a bigger issue than it seems to be. It could help both parties get what they want done.
Here is a thing about how it can help. I think it was done back in 1996 so take it how you will.
http://www.house.gov/jec/tort/tort/tort.htm
If the government would step in, yeah, it could work. And I'd have no problem seeing that. In addition to that, I'd love to see not-for-profit insurance companies. The biggest thing that could help tort reform would be for so-called victims not to abuse the system. They are just as responsible as the lawyers, in my mind. But until those people get some ethics, that won't happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by IronPlant
Interesting ideas in that link, btw. I'd love to see what would happen if a state implemented that plan.
Well that is the catch. Most people who are really big assholes about suing, are poor. This shit is making them poor by costing them more money for good and services, and by keeping more factories from opening up in their area to offer more work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolffen
Middle class americans are pretty ethical, if only because they like where they are at and don't want to chance losing it all.
Yep. Hook, line, and sinker.Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
Edwards won IMO, but it was hardly the massive piece d'ownage that Kerry pulled on Bush at the presidential debate. As for Cheney- we don't need that Halliburton fucknut as our vice president. It's time for Bush to start getting his $200K salary for doing nothing.
The electoral college stinks. The whole ball of wax should be decided purely by vox populi.
No it shouldnt. That would give stupid states like California and New York a wholly uneven amount of focus and influence, and states like Wyoming and South Dakota would be entirely neglected. It's a significant trade-off.Quote:
Originally Posted by gameoverDude
There's nothing in the Constitution that says how states' electors should be divided up. Its just that the winner-take-all system has triumphed in history. I would be in favor of a sort of proportional system, whereby if Bush wins 40% of California he would get 40% of the electoral votes (which would be about... 20 or 21 I think) - it would require zero Constitutional amendment (so it could happen quickly) and is in my opinion a far better solution than just piling the votes into 2 huge piles.
To your former comment, that happens within the states already. I live in South Carolina. I typically vote Independant or Democratic (assuming their candidates don't suck). When it comes to the presidential election, my voice will not be heard because for every 1 vote for Kerry, 3 votes will go to Bush. A lot of left-leaning people don't even go to the polls here, because they feel like there's no way their candidate will win in the face of the "Religious Right" swarm. The only choice they feel they have is to move to another state.Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
Now, if the proportional voting system was in place in all states, that'd be a moot point. And while the US constitution could be left alone, the state constitutions would need to be amended.
I still like that Non of the above option some other coutries have. Something like that would be really awesome right about now.