Oh, yawn. John "Nobody" Edwards endorses Obama. Gee, could the idiot have waited just a little longer, like maybe until December?
He's a pissant trial lawyer and one-term Senator incapable of winning anything other than fabulist driven legal cases. Sure, it made him a good buck. But when it comes to politics, the dude is a stone-cold loser.
Really, who cares? ... um, besides some few other liberal morons who slobbered over the guy and his spittle-flecked rhetoric until it became apparent what a loser he was. John Kerry's wouldbe Veep is such a fitting title for glamour boy. He'd go down in history as an infamous loser, if it weren't for the fact that history won't pay him any attention at all.
Way to go, Obama! Whoopie! :::smirk:::
"-- Not really, although the legal system we have in place is hardly a case study in capitalism. As a matter of fact, a closed system where the judges, teachers, practitioners, schools, courts and every other aspect of it is controlled by lawyers is probably not a good idea. For example, I don't think you should have to be a lawyer to be a judge. You should have access to legal advice from a lawyer, no doubt, but good, common sense judgment is one of the major things lacking in our justice system. --"
TK, you're retarded. For a couple of reasons. Firstly, there are elected judgeships. So you can, conceivably, be a judge without being a lawyer first.
Secondly, the legal system is not intended to be capitalistic. I'm not even sure what a capitalistic legal system would look like, and I'm pretty sure you don't either.
Thirdly, if you think "good, common sense judgement" is the one thing lacking from our justice system while insisting that judges shouldn't have to know the fundamentals of the legal system in order to be judges, you are basically ASKING for activist judges. Screw the laws on the books, just let the judge use his common sense. After all, blah blah blah habeus corpus. Blah blah blah minimum and maximum sentence requirements. Blah blah blah, appeals process. Judges should just say, "Hey - I'm going with my gut and making the law up as I go along."
Who the hell should "control" the system if not the lawyers? That's like suggesting your sewer system shouldn't be controlled by plumbers or your IT department shouldn't be run by technicians. Yeah, smart ass, let's turn the justice system over to... who exactly? Stock brokers? Doctors? Farmers? The clergy?
I mean, some might argue that the ultimate power lays with the voters, as they select the Governors and Legislators who make the laws and - as stated earlier - many of the judges that rule on it. But holding voters accountable for their own system would be just one of those fancy liberal elitist tricks. Why blame tort laws or environmental standards or business regulations on the heavily Republican Texas Congress or Texas Governorship or Texas Supreme Court when you can blame evil, evil, evil trial lawyers?
You're a fucking moron, TK.
Posted by: IslamoLlama | Thursday, May 15, 2008 at 11:25 AM
Legal and liberal Moe's bigotry is showing again: "...a freaky religion..." He means LDS. I think liberal bigots are the worst kind because they pretend to be otherwise.
Posted by: Fred Beloit | Thursday, May 15, 2008 at 12:06 PM
Just a few excerpts from the resident bashers:
"TK, you're retarded."
"You're a fucking moron, TK."
"NOT the taxpayers you dumb ass."
"Again, you are completely full of shit."
"No, I won't give it a rest.
I will not stand by idly while the right wing propagandists spread misinformation that is destroying our country."
Wow! these two are unbeliveable.
Is it hard to have a battle of wits when these two are unarmed! They hide behind their computer screens and lash out at people they know nothing about.
You two need to get a life!
Posted by: SacTownMan | Thursday, May 15, 2008 at 01:15 PM
WPE said: "Got any examples of "frivolous lawsuits" Edwards brought to court?"
Examples?!?! Don't be silly. Rush and Coulter said so! That's all we need to know. Besides, the "everyone knows" argument can not be beaten! And like, Riehl heard someone somewhere say so. So, yeah, like give it a rest and stuff.
In any event, yeah the Edwards endorsement means nothing: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/obama_edwards
Posted by: Totally Heterosexual Conservative | Thursday, May 15, 2008 at 02:21 PM
Reading all of these comments speculating about Edwards taking home fees in excess of 75% of the awards he earned, with fuck-all in support, is partially hilarious and partially depressing.
What you are suggesting, seekeronos et al, is that Edwards broke the law on numerous occasions, and the rules of the North Carolina Supreme Court by charging grossly excessive fees, for which he should pay a criminal a penalty and be severly disciplined by the state Bar. Do you have any factually verifiable evidence supporting your accusations? Any such instances would be a matter of public record.
Or is this just the usual rable you all heard on right wing radio?
Posted by: Totally Heterosexual Conservative | Thursday, May 15, 2008 at 02:46 PM
"--- Reading all of these comments speculating about Edwards taking home fees in excess of 75% of the awards he earned, with fuck-all in support, is partially hilarious and partially depressing. ---"
If you read my comments below, you'd see that I apologized for my generalization and presumption regarding Edward's fees for the Hot Tub Girl case, not too mention referencing an article that establishes that contingency fees for NC attorneys shall not exceed one-third of the award.
Posted by: seekeronos | Thursday, May 15, 2008 at 03:35 PM
Anywho, it is all but over for Hils now, with less than 130 delegates (supers or otherwise) to go until "clinchdom" is attained for Barry "Heinrich" Obama.
That leaves her with three options:
(1) accept a vice-presidency slot and likely sail into the presidency as an aged crone in 2016 (unlikely given the divisiveness of the primary campaign)
(2) bow out "gracefully" and jockey for supremacy within the Democratic Senate supermajority almost certain to win in November (a likely move, where O. pays off some of her campaign loans and the DNC/DLC gives her the consolation prize of Senate Majority Leader, esp. if Reid can't carry Nevada)
(3) scuttle whatever cred she has left with the DNC and go for a rock'em-sock'em Perot like fight to the bitter end, with no guarantee of victory or any chance of recognition by the Party post-election if she loses (not likely, but wouldn't put it past her, given her craving for what she sees as her "goddess-given right" to be POTUS).
Posted by: seekeronos | Thursday, May 15, 2008 at 03:41 PM
"If you had read my comment..."
And that is the gist of the problem, seek, as these nutroots are on Dan's blog for propaganda purposes only, not to read or discuss anything. That's why I decided to refuse to even engage the sons of bitches.
Posted by: templar knight | Thursday, May 15, 2008 at 04:06 PM
THC + WPE = Nutroot x two, or more likely = the same nutroot.
Posted by: templar knight | Thursday, May 15, 2008 at 04:27 PM
"-- He means LDS. I think liberal bigots are the worst kind because they pretend to be otherwise. --"
Hey now, I didn't not vote for Romney because of his private life. I not-voted for him for his policies. The fact that he's a member of a recognized cult wouldn't influence my vote in the least if he expressed progressive moral values.
Shame Republicans don't feel the same way.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=awU0UNxmMDDM&refer=
"-- Among all respondents, 37 percent say they wouldn't vote for a Mormon. More than two in five Democrats say they wouldn't do so, while about a third of both Republicans and independents say they wouldn't. Females are slightly more negative toward a Mormon candidate than males. --"
Yikes. Democrats are actually more Mormon-friendly than their Republican counterparts. Maybe if Romney had kissed Falwell's ring and converted to a Baptist when he had the chance...
Posted by: IslamoLlama | Thursday, May 15, 2008 at 04:50 PM
All the same, it does nothing to change the fact that TK is still wrong on the very basic principles of the judicial system. Reality strikes again and the wingnuts come out losers.
Posted by: IslamoLlama | Thursday, May 15, 2008 at 04:52 PM
i don't have a problem with edwards winning any of his cases; i have a problem with his fees.
Posted by: tally | Thursday, May 15, 2008 at 06:16 PM
Hero? Puh-leeze. John Edwards is a scumbag. He actually feels that HRC is the better candidate and that she has better articulated her positions on health care and the economy. However, because he feels that BO is the candidate, he is throwing his hat in the Obama ring. Not exactly Profiles in Courage. I assume they made some kind of deal, but I doubt Edwards would pass the vetting as he has a bimbo problem named Rielle.
Posted by: kerry zaputz | Thursday, May 15, 2008 at 08:48 PM
Lot of water flowed under the bridge since then, Moe.
"o contact the reporter on this story: Heidi Przybyla in Washington at hprzybyla@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: July 3, 2006 09:15 EDT"
""-- Among all respondents, 37 percent say they wouldn't vote for a Mormon. More than two in five Democrats say they wouldn't do so, while about a third of both Republicans and independents say they wouldn't. Females are slightly more negative toward a Mormon candidate than males. --"
Moe concludes: Repubs don't like Mormons. It doesn't occur to Moe that voters may not have wanted a specific candidate, Romney, and were thinking of his Mass. health care mess when they answered a survey. Dems do seem to favor the Black Liberation religion, however. Not a cult. No, no, a mainstream belief. Right brain/left brain. Yeah, mainstream. Government put HIV in our Newports, yeah, mainstream olde-time religion. Gimme that olde time...
Posted by: Fred Beloit | Friday, May 16, 2008 at 10:26 AM
"-- It doesn't occur to Moe that voters may not have wanted a specific candidate, Romney, and were thinking of his Mass. health care mess when they answered a survey. --"
Well, anything is possible. Perhaps with all our collapsing bridges, his administration of the Big Dig didn't inspire a lot of confidence. Or maybe his ability to flip-flop on every GOP talking point - from immigration to the gay to taxes to war to the environment to SCHIP - kept the saner bloc of GOP voters from pulling the lever for him because they didn't know where he stood.
Anything is possible.
I'm just pointing out that mocking Edwards and embracing Romney based on hair cuts and too much money seems to indicate that you probably don't know jack about your candidates.
Posted by: IslamoLlama | Friday, May 16, 2008 at 12:45 PM
The Big Dig planning began in about 1977, Moe. To blame it all on Romney is a stretch only a propagandist would make. You are such a one.
"Perhaps with all our collapsing bridges, his administration of the Big Dig didn't inspire a lot of confidence."
Posted by: Fred Beloit | Saturday, May 17, 2008 at 01:00 PM
How negligent you are with our language, Moe. "I'm just pointing out that mocking Edwards and embracing Romney based on hair cuts and too much money seems to indicate that you probably don't know jack about your candidates." Edwards was never my candidate. But you have captured the allure of Obama to his minions. Star quality. No qualifications. Just star quality.
Posted by: Fred Beloit | Saturday, May 17, 2008 at 01:05 PM
BTW, Romney was never my candidate either, and in any case I never mentioned Romney's haircut. Got any more ways to be wrong?
Posted by: Fred Beloit | Saturday, May 17, 2008 at 01:06 PM