http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39310

So the guy was a lawyer. All lawyers are shady fucks.

And if this was a big deal, it would have come out during the primaries.

They aren’t likely to find anything in his legal cases. Edwards chose them shrewdly. He wanted to do good for powerless people while he made money — and he had an eye toward building a little-guy-vs.-Goliath saga. The GOP tried to attack his trial lawyer career in North Carolina in 1998. It backfired.

Lawyer, yes. Scumbag, no.

It's just sbt has had bad experiences with lawyers.

He's not just another lawyer. He's the type that gives lawyers the reputation that they have. This guy epitomizes the stereotypical gladhanding, smarmy, money-grubbing image that lawyers are infamous for. Most lawyers are decent people, but with guys like Edwards around, you'd never know it.

most lawyers are just family guys that are trying to make a living. i think it is the big time lawyers that give lawyers a bad name.


anyhow, i like edwards overall, but i do hate when doctors get sued for things that are a little sketchy.

a group of surgeons in cincinnati lost a shit case and now they have a hard time finding insurance and may leave. problem is they are like the top guys. they would touch people no other doctor would.

He was suing doctors for something they had nothing to do with it and he's not a fucking scumbag? Give me a fucking break. He's nothing more than an ambulance chaser. I really hate people who suck up to one party and act like the representatives can do no wrong. It's as pathetic as the people who defend Bush.

Originally posted by sickbadthing
He was suing doctors for something they had nothing to do with it and he's not a fucking scumbag? Give me a fucking break. He's nothing more than an ambulance chaser. I really hate people who suck up to one party and act like the representatives can do no wrong. It's as pathetic as the people who defend Bush.

Completely agree. Edwards made his popularity for chasing ambulances,and no one should defend such a asshole-ish profession.

Originally posted by sickbadthing
He was suing doctors for something they had nothing to do with it and he's not a fucking scumbag? Give me a fucking break. He's nothing more than an ambulance chaser. I really hate people who suck up to one party and act like the representatives can do no wrong. It's as pathetic as the people who defend Bush. Just to clarify, you're not one of the ones that defends Bush for everything he does, do you?

I've heard so many people dismiss Bush's cocaine incident and his DUI's, etc, etc, then attack the democrats for everything they've ever done.

Just clarifying, I'm not sure if you are or not.

Originally posted by BeautifulLoser
Just to clarify, you're not one of the ones that defends Bush for everything he does, do you?

I've heard so many people dismiss Bush's cocaine incident and his DUI's, etc, etc, then attack the democrats for everything they've ever done.

Just clarifying, I'm not sure if you are or not. Uh, he hates Bush.

Please tell me your opinion of Edwards is formed from more sources than from WND's Website, the same site that is publishing this...

http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=1597

A little biased if you ask me. Of course they are going to call Edwards the ambulance chaser of all ambulance chasers. Even if his reputation is deserved, I'm not going to base it on WND or Newsmax or NRO.

lawyers and politicians are on the same playing field. it's not as if cheney being a CEO elevates him to a clandestine level.

as in all legal disputes, there is no one right side. sometimes doctors are reckless, sometimes the patients do reckless things and blame the doctors. in any situation, no one side is always right. every human is capable of mistake, wrong-doing, greed, etc.

because this is a more likely publicized example, would you consider the lawyer in the case of the people v. pacific gas & electric, a scumbag? i certainly wouldn't, nor would the people who have lives rife with medical problems due to chromium 6 exposure. it's possible to have good people practice law. scumbags aren't exclusive to the legal profession.

Originally posted by homechicago
because this is a more likely publicized example, would you consider the lawyer in the case of the people v. pacific gas & electric, a scumbag?

Probably not but if it is based on junk science, and there is really no scientific explanation behind it and it's merely circumstance, then the lawyer is a scumbag.

Also, the source seems to be a bunch of Christian fundamentalists so yeah, it's probably a very biased story. I've seen worse though.

I don't really fucking care if Edwards is a scumbag lawyer or not. Did anyone see the video of the Edwards family and the Kerry family together on the Daily Show last night? They're tools.

Here's something about Kerry that P.J. O'Rourke wrote:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conte...03/947nzczv.asp


Now after reading that, what do you think? The guy was more concerned about his political career than the lives of the scared Philipino vote counters. Does anyone see something wrong with that?

I think that people who belong to a party really have a tendency to look past COMPLETELY OBVIOUS SHIT because they think their candidate is going to make the world better once and for all. It's not the case though. Sure, Kerry may not fuck everything up as badly as Bush has because that's nearly impossible to do. I don't think that he's a good candidate though. He's going through the motions, picked the guy who came in 2nd as veep and is going to be elected because the current guy is a totally inept retard with a totally insane cabinet.

tl;dr- I was just being a dick because I hate politicians.

whoa sbt. i just want you to know that both articles you have posted so far are from sources well known as being very right wing.

Originally posted by Debaser
whoa sbt. i just want you to know that both articles you have posted so far are from sources well known as being very right wing.

Even if it is, the last one was written by O'Rourke and even if he is right wing, he's a good source and a decent guy. I don't agree with everything he believes but he's a very entertaining writer and I don't think his point is lost because of his political views.

Originally posted by sickbadthing


Even if it is, the last one was written by O'Rourke and even if he is right wing, he's a good source and a decent guy. I don't agree with everything he believes but he's a very entertaining writer and I don't think his point is lost because of his political views.

your link doesn't work. this one does.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/947nzczv.asp

and just for balance, here's a lefty column that has a response to O'rourke's article.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102054/

Originally posted by Debaser


your link doesn't work. this one does.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/947nzczv.asp

and just for balance, here's a lefty column that has a response to O'rourke's article.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102054/

Oh yeah. I copied that wrong. Thanks.