|
| quote: | Originally posted by NYCTrancefan
Okay, but you have to do me a favor first name me the cases in which John Edwards swindled doctors out of their money and it was such a flagrant and malicious act on his part that was totally undeserving and frivolous by his clients. I'll be waiting. You talk of proof but offer none in your claims as well. You should be fully aware of the links between Cheney and Halliburton. If you are telling me that this is the only American company capable of conducting such a task in Iraq I question your knowledge of the subject. Other companies include Baker Hughes, Flowserve, Fisher-Rosemount and Schlumberger all with strong capabilities and subsidiaries.
Maybe you are right though, Cheney had no interest, desire, or agenda to see his old company and his friends benefit from the Iraq reconstruction, how naive of me to believe such a concept, I mean there were weapons in Iraq as well but for some reason I don't believe so, wonder why. |
Flowserve and Fisher-Rosemount? Please. They're a bit more specialized and nowhere near large enough to take on such a task. We're talking about an entire country bigger than California, not the state of Rhode Island. However if memory serves, Flowserve was involved with putting out a lot of the oil fires that resulted when Saddam's loyalists were setting fire to the oil reserves. Baker-Hughes primarily operates rigs and does more E&P related stuff. Haliburton builds energy infrastructure. They're the most qualified. Schlumberger could probably do it too--OK, so we've come up with 1 alternative. In any event, sure, the administration probably knows the ins and outs of Halliburton much better than that of Schlumberger. Does that mean that they should be disqualified in preference of a company that is not as well known by the people coming up with the plans? Cheney does not own anymore HAL stock specifically so that people won't point to a conflict of interest.
As far as Edwards is concerned, it's now been widely publicized about his lawsuits over Cerebral Paulsey and the now "junk science" that was used to garner huge verdicts. Maybe he didn't know as much back then due to available studies, and maybe, just maybe, Bush didn't lie. In any event, all of the C-sections that have resulted, in part, due to Edwards' cases haven't resulted in any noticable drop-off in Cerebral Paulsey, but have resulted in higher risk deliveries for mothers. The doctors aren't the ones that pay in those situations--it's the insurance companies that pay, and they than hand that cost on to you, me and the rest of John Q Public, meaning we all get the wonderful result of higher insurance premiums. The only person that came out a winner in those trials was Edwards--that's how it works. That's why we NEED tort reform to cap runaway jury verdicts. Edwards will never let that happen.
The democratic solution to higher insurance premiums is to throw more money on the problem, which is the equivalent of throwing gas on the fire. It will only bankrupt our public account even more and cost every person more of their individual freedoms and rights, while doing nothing to attack the root of the problem.
But go ahead and defend a trial lawyer if that's what you really believe.
Government doesn't exist to help the people. Government exists to maintain conditions whereby people can help themselves.
Last edited by Shakka on Jul-29-2004 at 20:16
|
