PDA

View Full Version : John Edwards


I-Want-Troy's-Hair
01-21-2010, 02:58 PM
It appears the only person that is surprised by this news is Edwards and his wife. What a freaking moron. :doh:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100121/ap_on_re_us/us_edwards_daughter

John Edwards admits paternity, Elizabeth relieved

RALEIGH, N.C. – Former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards finally admitted Thursday he fathered a child during an affair before his second White House bid, dropping long-standing denials just ahead of a book by a former campaign aide who initially took the fall.

Edwards released a statement admitting paternity of the girl, Frances Quinn Hunter, who was born in 2008 to videographer Rielle Hunter as the result of an affair Edwards has already confessed to.

"It was wrong for me to ever deny she was my daughter," Edwards said, adding he was providing financial support for the child and mother. "I am Quinn's father."

Elizabeth Edwards, who has been battling an incurable return of cancer since 2007, said in an interview with The Associated Press that "the whole family is relieved." She declined to discuss the couple's marital status and said she didn't know where things will go from here.

"If somebody has a crystal ball, they can let me know," she said when asked what was next for her and John Edwards.

The admission comes ahead of the Feb. 2 release of a book by former Edwards aide Andrew Young that is expected to describe how Edwards worked to hide his paternity with Young's help.

Young initially claimed he was the child's father shortly before the 2008 presidential primary contests began. Word that Young was naming Edwards as the father first came when details of his book proposal were reported by The New York Times in September. Edwards' lawyer at the time declined to comment.

The child was born Feb. 27, 2008, indicating that she was conceived in the middle of 2007, several months after Hunter stopped working for Edwards. John and Elizabeth Edwards renewed their wedding vows in July of 2007 to celebrate their 30th wedding anniversary.

Hunter's lawyer, Michael Critchley, said the admission is "good for everyone."

Critchley said Edwards' statement amounted to a public acknowledgment of something that was known privately.

He said Hunter did not have an immediate comment. It is not clear where she and the child are living.

In an excerpt of an ABC News interview released Thursday, Young says that Edwards asked him to arrange a fake a paternity test.

"Get a doctor to fake the DNA results," Young said Edwards told him. "And he asked me ... to steal a diaper from the baby so he could secretly do a DNA test to find out if this (was) indeed his child."

An Edwards spokeswoman declined to comment on the ABC interview.

Elizabeth Edwards said her cancer got worse for a period but has recently been improving, with some signs of tumors shrinking. She said she's now on an "upward path" and hopes that her husband's admission will now end news stories about the family's matters.

"My marriage shouldn't be on anybody's radar screen except mine," she said.

Since admitting the affair in August 2008, Edwards has largely gone into seclusion. He has acknowledged a federal investigation into his campaign finances while both Young and Hunter — with her child — have made appearances at a federal courthouse in Raleigh.

In his statement, Edwards said, "I will do everything in my power to provide her (the child) with the love and support she deserves. I have been able to spend time with her during the past year and trust that future efforts to show her the love and affection she deserves can be done privately and in peace."

Edwards also said, "It was wrong for me ever to deny she was my daughter and hopefully one day, when she understands, she will forgive me."

"I have been providing financial support for Quinn and have reached an agreement with her mother to continue providing support in the future," the statement said. "To all those I have disappointed and hurt, these words will never be enough, but I am truly sorry."

Edwards' attorney, Wade Smith, said Edwards wrestled with the decision to come forward but took so long to do it because "he's not the only person involved in this."

"It's a complex family situation, and he had to keep in mind that other people have concerns and worries about it," Smith said.

Harrison Hickman, a longtime friend who worked as Edwards' political pollster, said Edwards also had to come to an agreement on child support before coming forward.

"That was the last piece of it — coming to an agreement on child support," Hickman said.

Smith said there would never be a logical explanation for why Edwards initially denied being the father. But he added that Edwards was "very pleased" to finally set the record straight.

"To say that life has been hard for John Edwards for the past year would be an enormous understatement," Smith said. "His life has totally fallen apart. It's been a very difficult time for him. He recognizes that he has been at fault."

Edwards was elected a U.S. senator from North Carolina in 1998 and ran unsuccessfully for vice president in 2004. He acknowledged in May that federal investigators were looking into how he used campaign funds. Grand jury proceedings are secret, and the U.S. attorney's office in Raleigh has declined to confirm or deny an investigation. Smith declined to comment Thursday about the probe.

Edwards adamantly denied during an interview with ABC News last summer that he had fathered a child with Hunter, and he welcomed a paternity test. He said then that the affair had ended in 2006. That year, Edwards' political action committee had paid Hunter's video production firm $100,000 for work.

MasterOfPuppets
01-21-2010, 03:08 PM
johns a baby daddy ...:chuckle:

Venom
01-21-2010, 03:38 PM
Could you imagine if this clown became president .

revefsreleets
01-22-2010, 10:27 AM
He's a typical slimeball trial lawyer, and lying is an art form for him.

The ironic part of this is that his staff was telling him all along to come clean, but he somehow envisioned himself above reproach, like he couldn't get caught.

He's a POS and always has been...and he was THIS close to being our VP.

SteelersinCA
01-22-2010, 11:22 AM
He's a typical slimeball trial lawyer, and lying is an art form for him.

The ironic part of this is that his staff was telling him all along to come clean, but he somehow envisioned himself above reproach, like he couldn't get caught.

He's a POS and always has been...and he was THIS close to being our VP.

Generalize much? For every "slimeball trial lawyer" there is a trial attorney on the opposite side opposing them.

7SteelGal43
01-22-2010, 11:50 AM
baby mama drama










but he's a liberal dem, so it can't be held against him.

Vincent
01-22-2010, 12:20 PM
...and he was THIS close to being our VP.

Who could forget the wonderful "images" from that great campaign?

http://catholiclight.stblogs.org/archives/dems.jpg http://www.ushanka.us/blog/images/04-edwards-and-kerry.JPEG http://blamebush.typepad.com/blamebush/images/fabulous.jpghttp://blogs.scripps.com/abil/insider/EdwardsKerry.jpg http://imgs.inkfrog.com/pix/thevideodrome/kerry_edwards.jpg http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/7/d/j/kerry_edwards_titanic.jpg http://img108.imageshack.us/img108/5048/brokebackmountain4w4rz.jpg http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/K/7/kerry_ambiguouslygay.jpg

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Vincent
01-22-2010, 12:40 PM
And I almost forgot my favoritest...

http://i647.photobucket.com/albums/uu191/vinnyq/KEJibJab.jpg?t=1264185322

from... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0OXJneDQ1s

revefsreleets
01-22-2010, 09:43 PM
Generalize much? For every "slimeball trial lawyer" there is a trial attorney on the opposite side opposing them.

I'm sorry...he was a corrupt filthy sleezy lying dirtball POS trial lawyer, not to be confused with the BETTER trial lawyers who are just sleezy, corrupt liars....

Mah bad....

SteelersinCA
01-23-2010, 12:54 AM
Yeah I hate those damn trial lawyers fighting for stupid stuff like 1st amendment rights and all, gosh why don't they just go back to the hole they crawled out of? That Clarence Darrow is despicable too, it's bad enough he's from Ohio but he fought for civil rights and monkeys, ewww, what a snake.

Godfather
01-23-2010, 08:50 AM
but he's a liberal dem, so it can't be held against him.

I don't know about that. I think his career is over.

Some things are just roo over the top and cheating on your wife when she has cancer is one of them.

GoSlash27
01-23-2010, 09:05 AM
Who could forget the wonderful "images" from that great campaign?
It woulda been better if he *was* gay for Lurch. No paternity problems.

zulater
01-24-2010, 07:19 AM
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/the_two_john_edwardses_qFzPMp2P4ptqL67UKXkUmJ

The Two John Edwards.

As a presidential candidate, John Edwards spoke of “two Americas.” With his admission Thursday that he fathered his mistress’ child, Americans now have an all-too-clear view of the two . . . John Edwardses.

On the campaign trail back in ’08, Edwards described one nation for the rich and another for the poor. It was a dubious construct: No country in history, after all, has ever extended such enormous opportunity to as many of its people, on as fair and broad a basis, as America.

But there’s little doubt about Edwards’ duality.

One John Edwards claims to be a selfless public servant — the son of a mill worker who twice offered himself up as presidential fodder. In 2004, Democrats actually made him their vice-presidential nominee.


A slick, cynical and intensely selfish pol — a man who brazenly and repeatedly lied to his wife, his supporters and the American people.

Edwards finally came clean on national TV Thursday: He is indeed, he said, the father of filmmaker Rielle Hunter’s child.

Last summer, in an interview supposedly meant to clear the air, he’d ’fessed up to the affair, and to having previously lied to cover it up — but still insisted he wasn’t the father.

Who knows what other sordid secrets he’s still hiding?

Now, it seems, the first Edwards — that is, the supposedly more upstanding citizen — has spread the word that he’s gone to help provide relief in . . . Haiti.

The mind boggles.

Can’t this guy even seek penance without looking to score points?

OK, this time, we’re the ones who lied: There really aren’t two John Edwardses, but just one — a former Democratic presidential pretender whose dishonesty, cynicism, hubris and lack of propriety simply know no bounds.

Edwards cheated on — and humiliated — his ill wife. He lied to his own supporters and embarrassed his party.

Alas, even one John Edwards is one too many.



Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/the_two_john_edwardses_qFzPMp2P4ptqL67UKXkUmJ#ixzz 0dXGFVtSR

Vincent
01-24-2010, 12:07 PM
Who knows what other sordid secrets he’s still hiding?

http://forums.steelersfever.com/showpost.php?p=761805&postcount=7

:rofl::toofunny::sofunny: :wave::toofunny::chuckle::rofl:

:popcorn:

HometownGal
01-24-2010, 05:01 PM
http://inquirer.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/edwardseptfd0.png

http://uglydemocrats.com/democrats/United-States/John-Edwards/john-edwards-pretty.jpg

revefsreleets
01-25-2010, 08:21 AM
Yeah I hate those damn trial lawyers fighting for stupid stuff like 1st amendment rights and all, gosh why don't they just go back to the hole they crawled out of? That Clarence Darrow is despicable too, it's bad enough he's from Ohio but he fought for civil rights and monkeys, ewww, what a snake.

The honest above board trial lawyers probably make up 10%....the other 90% are ambulance chasing douchebags who graduated 180th in their class and need a job to pay their $250k in student loans for law school. The "good ones" are a necessary evil...the bad ones are whale shit. Perhaps part of the problem is the fact that in some states the Democratic parties top campaign contributors are trial lawyers, to the tune of as much as 80% of their coffers coming straight from these slimeballs.

Yes, I'm generalizing...but this country is literally being torn about by over litigious ass-hat lawyers preying on the lowest common denominator....perhaps instead of defending the trashiest segment of a trashy profession, why not simply defend yourself? If I sold used cars, I'd START defending my own personal dealership's record, NOT the industry as a whole, which is rife from top to bottom with frauds and charlatans.

Also, do you have any more recent examples of trial lawyers who are actually shining beacons of nobility and justice? Darrow's best work was done 80 years ago...haven't there been any OTHER trial lawyers of note since then?

steelreserve
01-25-2010, 12:02 PM
Generalize much? For every "slimeball trial lawyer" there is a trial attorney on the opposite side opposing them.

And for every idiotic case that goes to trial, 10 are settled out of court because it's cheaper than contesting it.

The result being that all kinds of morons play the legal system like the lottery, and the rest of us have to deal with extra headaches in everyday life because any company, government, etc. now has to take asinine precautions because they're paranoid about being sued.

Slimeball trial lawyers have a disproportionately negative effect, because the system is stacked so that even one of them can cause a huge amount of damage. When even GETTING sued is so disastrous that it puts you into financial ruin, it pretty much renders irrelevant any positive effect that a decent lawyer could have by fighting the good fight.

Sorry, but I'm going to have to agree with the "trial lawyers are ruining America" side.

Vincent
01-25-2010, 12:32 PM
And for every idiotic case that goes to trial, 10 are settled out of court because it's cheaper than contesting it.

The result being that all kinds of morons play the legal system like the lottery, and the rest of us have to deal with extra headaches in everyday life because any company, government, etc. now has to take asinine precautions because they're paranoid about being sued.

Slimeball trial lawyers have a disproportionately negative effect, because the system is stacked so that even one of them can cause a huge amount of damage. When even GETTING sued is so disastrous that it puts you into financial ruin, it pretty much renders irrelevant any positive effect that a decent lawyer could have by fighting the good fight.

Sorry, but I'm going to have to agree with the "trial lawyers are ruining America" side.

This is why we invented "the duel". Simple. Final.

http://answersinhistory.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/duel.jpg

Next?

steelreserve
01-25-2010, 01:49 PM
This is why we invented "the duel". Simple. Final.

http://answersinhistory.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/duel.jpg

Next?

LOL.

I also think that we should make it so that if you file an idiotic lawsuit and it gets thrown out, you get your ass kicked. Not any kind of official procedure carried out according to protocol -- just one day about a month later, you can be sitting there eating your lunch or whatever, and someone suddenly shows up and beats your ass. Nothing cruel and unusual about that.

Godfather
01-25-2010, 02:28 PM
Also, do you have any more recent examples of trial lawyers who are actually shining beacons of nobility and justice? Darrow's best work was done 80 years ago...haven't there been any OTHER trial lawyers of note since then?

Depends on your definition of trial lawyer. Technically a trial lawyer is any lawyer who argues in the courtroom instead of pushing papers at the office...by that definition I'd go with Barry Scheck, for freeing hundreds of innocent people from prison.

But in political discourse, "trail lawyer" is used to mean "plaintiff's tort lawyer". It would be harder to think of one who can be called noble.

SteelersinCA
01-25-2010, 08:12 PM
The honest above board trial lawyers probably make up 10%....the other 90% are ambulance chasing douchebags who graduated 180th in their class and need a job to pay their $250k in student loans for law school. The "good ones" are a necessary evil...the bad ones are whale shit. Perhaps part of the problem is the fact that in some states the Democratic parties top campaign contributors are trial lawyers, to the tune of as much as 80% of their coffers coming straight from these slimeballs.

Yes, I'm generalizing...but this country is literally being torn about by over litigious ass-hat lawyers preying on the lowest common denominator....perhaps instead of defending the trashiest segment of a trashy profession, why not simply defend yourself? If I sold used cars, I'd START defending my own personal dealership's record, NOT the industry as a whole, which is rife from top to bottom with frauds and charlatans.

Also, do you have any more recent examples of trial lawyers who are actually shining beacons of nobility and justice? Darrow's best work was done 80 years ago...haven't there been any OTHER trial lawyers of note since then?

First of all, I don't believe law is a trashy profession. Secondly, I don't have to justify or defend myself to you in order to garner some validity for pointing out sweeping generalizations. I picked Darrow because I knew you couldn't/wouldn't slam someone from Ohio and I don't care enough to research more attorneys from Ohio. Backing up generalizations with more generalizations is "garbage in, garbage out."

Depends on your definition of trial lawyer. Technically a trial lawyer is any lawyer who argues in the courtroom instead of pushing papers at the office...by that definition I'd go with Barry Scheck, for freeing hundreds of innocent people from prison.

But in political discourse, "trail lawyer" is used to mean "plaintiff's tort lawyer". It would be harder to think of one who can be called noble.

That is a very good point. Definitions are key, but I would make one slight adjustment; trial lawyers are lawyers who actually try cases in front of a jury. Trial lawyers in a political sense is spot on.

SteelersinCA
01-25-2010, 08:27 PM
And for every idiotic case that goes to trial, 10 are settled out of court because it's cheaper than contesting it.

The result being that all kinds of morons play the legal system like the lottery, and the rest of us have to deal with extra headaches in everyday life because any company, government, etc. now has to take asinine precautions because they're paranoid about being sued.

Slimeball trial lawyers have a disproportionately negative effect, because the system is stacked so that even one of them can cause a huge amount of damage. When even GETTING sued is so disastrous that it puts you into financial ruin, it pretty much renders irrelevant any positive effect that a decent lawyer could have by fighting the good fight.

Sorry, but I'm going to have to agree with the "trial lawyers are ruining America" side.

Actually it's more like for every 1 that goes to trial 99 are settled out of court. Further I think bad lawyers are like anything else, they get the publicity. You can't even begin to imagine the good attorneys like Ed Masry has done for the people of America, but it's hard to do a story on that. Erin Brockovich is viewed as a good movie and not much more. The effects of that are felt all across the nation. Anatomy of a murder, Murder on a Sunday are great movies for the common person but they don't realize the impact those cases have on every single person. I could go on and on listing movies based on real life court cases that have changed America for the better far more than any trial lawyer has changed it for the worse, but what's the point? You'll always remember the attorney who sued someone questionably for 10 million rather than the attorney who sued the huge corporation for poisoning thousands of people for 300 million.

A few good men, Philadelphia, A Civil Action, Ghosts of Mississippi, etc.

People forget, the court system does not.

GoSlash27
01-25-2010, 09:01 PM
Backing up generalizations with more generalizations is "garbage in, garbage out."
More to the point, attacking lawyers is just cheap populist sophistry. No real logic to it, but popular nonetheless.
The problem isn't the lawyers. It's the law.

SteelersinCA
01-25-2010, 09:06 PM
More to the point, attacking lawyers is just cheap populist sophistry. No real logic to it, but popular nonetheless.
The problem isn't the lawyers. It's the law.

There you go, but who is ultimately responsible for the law? The people, we elect the idiots who make law and we don't have the backbone to vote them out. It's just easier to hate lawyers. Don't hate the player, hate the game! :drink:

Shea
01-25-2010, 09:31 PM
I saw a commercial for 20/20 for this coming Friday where they'll be featuring this story and the Edwards' family.

What I found interesting was that they hinted at scandal during the campaign that was directly aimed towards Elizabeth, and insinuated that she wasn't completely forthright about her marriage and other matters.

I dislike him immensely - he's a turd - but I hope she doesn't come out looking other than what I've always viewed her to be, classy with unimaginable strength.

Not only the terminal cancer she is currently enduring, but I've seen many interviews where she talkes extensively about the death of her teenage son. I admired her courage and composure in both circumstances - hope she doesn't turn out to be someone other than what I perceived.

HometownGal
01-26-2010, 07:25 AM
The problem isn't the lawyers. It's the law.

Bingo. :thumbsup:

revefsreleets
01-26-2010, 10:08 AM
Flood the market with lawyers and......................good things happen?

Nonsense....with a system completely loaded to the gills with lawyers, they NEED to find work somehow...fortunately for them (and unfortunately for the rest of us), they are in a business where they can easily go out and literally create cases for themselves. We are the most litigious society in the world NOT because of the laws, but because of the amount of lawyers we have (who are able to adroitly create a favorable environment for themselves)...and we are pumping more and more of this rot out year after year.

Also, why does anyone think settling is somehow a GOOD thing? It's usually the simplest and cheapest (but NOT cheap) way for one party to avoid being completely swamped by endless legal fees, regardless of the actual legitimacy of the case...I hear examples daily of defendants who did nothing wrong simply giving in or giving up because they didn't have the money to fight anymore. Where's the justice in that?

steelreserve
01-26-2010, 12:07 PM
Actually it's more like for every 1 that goes to trial 99 are settled out of court. Further I think bad lawyers are like anything else, they get the publicity. You can't even begin to imagine the good attorneys like Ed Masry has done for the people of America, but it's hard to do a story on that. Erin Brockovich is viewed as a good movie and not much more. The effects of that are felt all across the nation. Anatomy of a murder, Murder on a Sunday are great movies for the common person but they don't realize the impact those cases have on every single person. I could go on and on listing movies based on real life court cases that have changed America for the better far more than any trial lawyer has changed it for the worse, but what's the point? You'll always remember the attorney who sued someone questionably for 10 million rather than the attorney who sued the huge corporation for poisoning thousands of people for 300 million.

A few good men, Philadelphia, A Civil Action, Ghosts of Mississippi, etc.

People forget, the court system does not.

Yeah, but in those big splashy nonsensical-lawsuit cases, the problem goes WAY beyond the fact that a company or government agency loses a $10 million case to (or settles with) some idiot.

The real damage comes from the fact that it sets an idiotic precedent, and now every entity with money -- public or private -- has to take paranoid precautions to try and not get sued themselves. We take one case involving the worst possible idiot, and apply it as precedent to every similar situation everywhere, and pretty soon most of our actions are predicated not on common sense, but on guarding ourselves against the bottom-percentile morons.

Yes -- everyone remembers those cases, and that's precisely why you can't get a straight answer out of anyone, anything done by the city or the state takes years longer than it used to, everything in the world is off-limits due to safety precautions, you're always being asked to fill out crushing amounts of paperwork, and employees of anything from a private company to a government entity are generally instructed to adopt a posture of "No ... I'm sorry ... I'm sorry ... I can't." Lawsuits like that -- and lawyers like that -- cause a HUGE amount of collateral damage, and are indirectly strangling the common sense out of all aspects of life in this country.

SteelersinCA
01-26-2010, 12:37 PM
Yeah, but in those big splashy nonsensical-lawsuit cases, the problem goes WAY beyond the fact that a company or government agency loses a $10 million case to (or settles with) some idiot.

The real damage comes from the fact that it sets an idiotic precedent, and now every entity with money -- public or private -- has to take paranoid precautions to try and not get sued themselves. We take one case involving the worst possible idiot, and apply it as precedent to every similar situation everywhere, and pretty soon most of our actions are predicated not on common sense, but on guarding ourselves against the bottom-percentile morons.

Yes -- everyone remembers those cases, and that's precisely why you can't get a straight answer out of anyone, anything done by the city or the state takes years longer than it used to, everything in the world is off-limits due to safety precautions, you're always being asked to fill out crushing amounts of paperwork, and employees of anything from a private company to a government entity are generally instructed to adopt a posture of "No ... I'm sorry ... I'm sorry ... I can't." Lawsuits like that -- and lawyers like that -- cause a HUGE amount of collateral damage, and are indirectly strangling the common sense out of all aspects of life in this country.

I don't disagree they cause huge amounts of collateral damage. Agree completely, I just think to generalize all lawyers are terrible or even most is complete and utter trash. In total I think lawyers have created far more good than the huge amount of collateral damage the idiots have brought upon us.

Incidentally, all the paperwork in the world won't stop you from getting sued. It's an attempt to mitigate the effects of said suit. Lots of states are now adopting laws that if you bring a suit and are the losing party, you pay the other sides attorneys fees. I think that is a fantastic idea, of course it doesn't address the settlement issue which is the biggest part of the civil calendar.

steelreserve
01-26-2010, 01:36 PM
I don't disagree they cause huge amounts of collateral damage. Agree completely, I just think to generalize all lawyers are terrible or even most is complete and utter trash. In total I think lawyers have created far more good than the huge amount of collateral damage the idiots have brought upon us.

Incidentally, all the paperwork in the world won't stop you from getting sued. It's an attempt to mitigate the effects of said suit. Lots of states are now adopting laws that if you bring a suit and are the losing party, you pay the other sides attorneys fees. I think that is a fantastic idea, of course it doesn't address the settlement issue which is the biggest part of the civil calendar.

Hey, I wasn't the one who said ALL lawyers are bad. I don't even think the majority are. Just that the ones who ARE dipshits do a lot of damage -- and the way the system is set up makes it completely one-sided. Yes, plenty of lawyers do plenty of good for a lot of people ... but I don't think the good is really in an area that overlaps the damage that the bad ones do. Almost like comparing apples and oranges.

I've heard of the loser-pays-the-costs rules, and I'm all for that, but just like anything else, it's imperfect (since, as you say, there ARE a lot of legitimate lawyers pursuing legitimate cases -- is it fair for those people to get slapped with a huge legal bill because the court ruled against them? That might even serve as a huge deterrent to the Erin Brockoviches of the world.)

Anyway ... one thing I think would solve the problem is if it was a whole lot easier to get disbarred. THAT would make the slimeballs think twice, because as it stands now, they're just playing with other people's money and they really have nothing to lose.

SteelersinCA
01-26-2010, 02:36 PM
Hey, I wasn't the one who said ALL lawyers are bad. I don't even think the majority are. Just that the ones who ARE dipshits do a lot of damage -- and the way the system is set up makes it completely one-sided. Yes, plenty of lawyers do plenty of good for a lot of people ... but I don't think the good is really in an area that overlaps the damage that the bad ones do. Almost like comparing apples and oranges.

I've heard of the loser-pays-the-costs rules, and I'm all for that, but just like anything else, it's imperfect (since, as you say, there ARE a lot of legitimate lawyers pursuing legitimate cases -- is it fair for those people to get slapped with a huge legal bill because the court ruled against them? That might even serve as a huge deterrent to the Erin Brockoviches of the world.)

Anyway ... one thing I think would solve the problem is if it was a whole lot easier to get disbarred. THAT would make the slimeballs think twice, because as it stands now, they're just playing with other people's money and they really have nothing to lose.

I definitely think it's a system that could use some tweaking. I don't do civil law so most of this doesn't even concern me. I hate paperwork.

revefsreleets
01-26-2010, 04:19 PM
Hey, I wasn't the one who said ALL lawyers are bad.

I didn't either....please don't mischaracterize my sentiments.

I think we could definitely use about 5-10% of the lawyers we have, and if we could somehow magically eliminate 95% of the existing ones, and send MOST of the kids planning on entering, entering, or recently enrolled in Law School into science or math post-graduate programs, in about 15 years MOST of the problems facing this country would be completely solved.

PI atty's are the worst of a bad and mostly superfluous bunch...they are the bottom of the already bad barrel, although, as I stated, SOME are a necessary evil.

steelreserve
01-27-2010, 12:06 PM
I didn't either....please don't mischaracterize my sentiments.

Don't worry, I wasn't.

I think we could definitely use about 5-10% of the lawyers we have, and if we could somehow magically eliminate 95% of the existing ones, and send MOST of the kids planning on entering, entering, or recently enrolled in Law School into science or math post-graduate programs, in about 15 years MOST of the problems facing this country would be completely solved.

PI atty's are the worst of a bad and mostly superfluous bunch...they are the bottom of the already bad barrel, although, as I stated, SOME are a necessary evil.

I mean, you pretty much disproved yourself right in the next sentence, and you've taken the extreme stand all the way through.

Not going to sit here and listen to you nitpick and whine about the precision of my assessment. Anyone but an idiot can see what you meant, so you can either live with that or EABOD, makes no difference to me.

revefsreleets
01-28-2010, 11:02 AM
Don't worry, I wasn't.



I mean, you pretty much disproved yourself right in the next sentence, and you've taken the extreme stand all the way through.

Not going to sit here and listen to you nitpick and whine about the precision of my assessment. Anyone but an idiot can see what you meant, so you can either live with that or EABOD, makes no difference to me.


Christ, the whine factor is out of control on this board...

steelreserve
01-28-2010, 12:26 PM
Well, then ...

EABOD

revefsreleets
01-28-2010, 01:06 PM
If you use an acronym, do you think it makes it okay to tell me to "eat a bag of dicks"?

If you were any kind of quality poster I might actually be a little insulted but.....nah. This is right about par for you...

steelreserve
01-28-2010, 04:38 PM
If you use an acronym, do you think it makes it okay to tell me to "eat a bag of dicks"?

Hey, I gave you a choice.

If you were any kind of quality poster I might actually be a little insulted but.....nah. This is right about par for you...

Kind of mirrors my sentiments about you. The difference is, in your case, it also mirrors everyone else's sentiments.

GoSlash27
01-28-2010, 07:32 PM
The difference is, in your case, it also mirrors everyone else's sentiments.
I don't know about *everyone*, but I admit I'd be hard pressed to find anybody on this forum willing to contradict you. :noidea:

The thing about populism is that even though it's logically flawed and intellectually dishonest, people get away with it because few people are willing to call them on it.

If you use an acronym, do you think it makes it okay to tell me to "eat a bag of dicks"?
What if the acronym doesn't directly translate? Like GAFFGDOC?*
*gargle a fifty five gallon drum of ****
/ I have a strong dislike for anybody that uses "quality" as an adjective.

St33lersguy
01-28-2010, 08:20 PM
Not surprised. It's slimeball John Edwards.

Godfather
01-28-2010, 09:44 PM
If you use an acronym, do you think it makes it okay to tell me to "eat a bag of dicks"?

If you were any kind of quality poster I might actually be a little insulted but.....nah. This is right about par for you...

I thought it the B was for bowl.

SteelCityMom
01-28-2010, 09:56 PM
I thought it the B was for bowl.

LOL...I thought the B and O were for Big Old! I guess it's all in the eye of the beholder though. :chuckle:

GBMelBlount
01-28-2010, 10:06 PM
LOL. Never heard of any of those.

I guess I am just an old recluse.

But I do agree with Revs that there are WAY too many attorneys and not enough people in math & science, etc.