About us Login Get email updates
Quick Clip
Print

CNN's Beck asked of Edwards: "[W]hy not just start wearing the Soviet star on your head and the Workers World Party?"

January 10, 2008 3:26 pm ET

On his CNN Headline News show, Glenn Beck said of John Edwards: "I listened to him last night give a speech, and, I mean, why not just start wearing the Soviet star on your head and the Workers World Party?" Beck added: "Good Lord in heaven. Was it a mistake for him to go after her [Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton] for crying and then also to join this great Soviet state?"

image

On the January 9 edition of his CNN Headline News show, host Glenn Beck said of presidential candidate and former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC): "I listened to him last night give a speech, and, I mean, why not just start wearing the Soviet star on your head and the Workers World Party?" Beck added: "Good Lord in heaven. Was it a mistake for him to go after her [Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY)] for crying and then also to join this great Soviet state?"

This is not the first time a media figure has associated Edwards with communism. On the December 10 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly noted that entertainer Harry Belafonte had endorsed Edwards and commented: "Oh, I guess that means Edwards has a lock on the Fidel Castro vote." Similarly, on the February 25 edition of the NBC-syndicated Chris Matthews Show, Jim Cramer, host of CNBC's Mad Money, said of Edwards: "He's a tort lawyer for heaven's sake. He's a -- that's the equivalent on Wall Street of -- he's [former Russian communist leader Leon] Trotsky."

From the January 9 edition of CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck:

BECK: Let me -- let me ask you this, 'cause you're in such a unique position to answer this. I think Mitt Romney has a lot in common with your dad in 1976. Do you feel that way at all, that he's --

MICHAEL REAGAN (radio talk-show host): No, I don't. No, I don't. Because let me tell you -- I told a bunch of college kids back in August, that any one of them could be a surrogate speaker for Ronald Reagan. Because Ronald Reagan was so consistent over the years --

BECK: Oh yeah, no, no -- I don't mean ideology. I just, it's the same kind of -- but it's the same kind of --

REAGAN: Whoa. My dad never looked that good 24 hours a day.

BECK: All right. Peter. John Edwards, I listened to him last night give a speech, and, I mean, why not just start wearing the Soviet star on your head and the Workers World Party? Good Lord in heaven. Was it a mistake for him to go after her for crying and then also to join this great Soviet state?

PETER FENN (Democratic strategist): I'll tell you, I think he is about -- he's a parody on himself. He's so over the top, this guy, when he criticized Hillary and said, "Well, you know, you have to be tough to be president," I thought to myself, "Buddy, what is your problem? I mean, what are you thinking?"

First of all, it's not going to help you. But, you know, I think Edwards is -- you know, he'll go on, he'll be around. We'll have to deal with -- and I'll tell you, if they cover every one of his speeches where he says the exact same thing every single time --

BECK: Thank you. Thank you. Guys, thanks a lot.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by dexteritas0071418 (January 10, 2008 3:29 pm ET)
         
      Beck's comment was nonsense; the soviet's wore the star on a hat, not their head.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by dbeden4153 (January 10, 2008 3:30 pm ET)
           
        not only that, they didn't wear it on a World Worker's Party either.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (January 10, 2008 3:41 pm ET)
             
          Most of Beck's comments don't make any sense. Most are not even complete sentences or grammatically coherent. I'm guessing his audience doesn't demand that, only the name of a non-Republican, followed by some archaic Red Menace buzzwords.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by snoopy (January 10, 2008 3:44 pm ET)
             
          But how can this be? How can liberals be communists and nazi's? http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Author_says_Obama_Mussolini_indirectly_linked_0110.html
          Report Abuse
          • Author by dexteritas0071418 (January 10, 2008 3:53 pm ET)
               
            Because people is dumb and jus' spit bad words out when dey mad.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by anotheramerican (January 10, 2008 4:12 pm ET)
               
            Snoop, I guess you didn't read the blurb. Fascism and bolshevism were both heresies of socialism," Goldberg claimed. Glad to be of help. :-)
            Report Abuse
            • Author by snoopy (January 10, 2008 4:18 pm ET)
                 
              I thought you said you were helping? ;) n. pl. her·e·sies An opinion or a doctrine at variance with established religious beliefs, especially dissension from or denial of Roman Catholic dogma by a professed believer or baptized church member. Adherence to such dissenting opinion or doctrine. A controversial or unorthodox opinion or doctrine, as in politics, philosophy, or science. Adherence to such controversial or unorthodox opinion. A controversial or unorthodox opinion or doctrine, as in politics, philosophy, or science. Adherence to such controversial or unorthodox opinion.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by anotheramerican (January 10, 2008 4:33 pm ET)
                   
                Snoop, Heresies don't mean that a heretic has the opposite views, just that they differ from the establishment. Protestantism can be called a heresy of Catholicism, but both Protestants and Catholics are Christians. Think of it this way, Fascism and bolshevism are simply different flavors of classic socialism. That is the way the term heresy is used by Goldberg.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by snoopy (January 10, 2008 4:38 pm ET)
                     
                  Thanks for explaining, that's a little clearer. I still disagree because of an article I posted a few days or more ago, it showed that while fascism may begin on the left, it naturally gravitates to the right once power is obtained. Hmmm, may be how Goldberg is making claims against republicans as well...
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by LarryE (January 10, 2008 4:54 pm ET)
                     
                  That is the way the term heresy is used by Goldberg. "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less." - Humpty Dumpty
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by solon (January 10, 2008 4:56 pm ET)
                     
                  No they werent I dont care WHAT Goldberg said neither of you have an idea what you aer talking about.
                  Report Abuse
            • Author by solon (January 10, 2008 4:52 pm ET)
                 
              Yeah thats bunk. Hitler rounded up REAL socialists and communists and put them in camps right next to Jews. The yellow star signified a Jew pink a homosexual, red a political prisoner that is a socialist or communist, black a Gypsy, and green a criminal.
              Report Abuse
        • Author by wzwriter (January 11, 2008 9:27 am ET)
             
          I guess Glenn Beck got his "information" off the Internets. :-)
          Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (January 10, 2008 3:35 pm ET)
         
      Gee, since Edwards' views are more in line with European Socialism, and not totalitarian Soviet Communism, why didn't Becky tell him to wear a Swedish flag on his head...or a Union Jack? Oh, I know...because Becky's troglodyte audience wouldn't get all lathered up over those. Becky needs to sue that hospital...I think they accidently removed his brain while they were digging around back there.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Clevenative (January 10, 2008 3:52 pm ET)
           
        I think they accidentally removed his brain while they were digging around back there.

        LOL. I can just picture him returning to the hospital complaining of his obvious recent cognitive problems and being placed on the MRI table face down!

        Report Abuse
      • Author by anotheramerican (January 10, 2008 4:14 pm ET)
           
        Thanks for admitting Edwards is Euro-socialist. That should win him a lot of votes. :-)
        Report Abuse
    • Author by tommy (January 10, 2008 3:35 pm ET)
         
      It's irrelevant to me what party Edwards belongs too, but his cry during these concession speeches about health care rings a little hollow considering he is a first class hypocrite;............. "Senator Edwards talks about the need to provide health care for all, but that didn't stop him from using a clever tax dodge to avoid paying $591,000 into the Medicare system. While making his fortune as a trial lawyer in 1995, he formed what is known as a "subchapter S" corporation, with himself as the sole shareholder. Instead of taking his $26.9 million in earnings directly in the following four years, he paid himself a salary of $360,000 a year and took the rest as corporate dividends. Since salary is subject to 2.9% Medicare tax but dividends aren't, that meant he shielded more than 90% of his income".............I would imagine all that tax money he avoided paying could have certainly been used by those he pretends to champion now.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by dexteritas0071418 (January 10, 2008 3:55 pm ET)
           
        Wow. BUST!
        Report Abuse
      • Author by thomp.steve9098 (January 10, 2008 3:56 pm ET)
           
        Hey Tommy, can you tell me where you got that quote from? I've long thought edwards was the hypocritical, fraud . . . "do as I say, not as I do" type. I'm so tired of hearing about how his poor parents worked so hard in a mill. He's lucky he had hard-working parents. There's plenty of families, including republican families, who work just as hard as the edwards' ever have. And the truth his, he does sound like some kind of marxist or socialist, fighting the good fight agains the bourgeoisie. That message itself doesn't necessarily bother me, but then again, neither does Beck's off-hand remark
        Report Abuse
        • Author by tommy (January 10, 2008 4:01 pm ET)
             
          Steve, It was reported back in 2004, and is google-able on the web.......this came from the WSJ, Mr. Edwards said he did this for legal liability, he does not dispute.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by easymike (January 10, 2008 3:57 pm ET)
           
        Tommy, Just about every small corporation in the country, particularly professional corporations are Subchapter S. If Edwards really wanted to cheat he would not have declared $360,000 as income or the dividends. Any other business decision would have been stupid considering the laws at that time. Edwards message is pro working class and anti corporatism not anti capitalism.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by tommy (January 10, 2008 3:59 pm ET)
             
          I never said it was a cheat, or illegal, just incredibly hypocritical.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by worrierking (January 10, 2008 4:09 pm ET)
               
            By that logic, no rich person can ever advocate for the poor. We know that only a rich person can be elected president, so therefore no president can ever advocate for the poor. I guess that's why this president has been such an advocate for those less unfortunate than most.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by anotheramerican (January 10, 2008 4:18 pm ET)
                 
              Was Clinton rich? (I mean before he got elected.)
              Report Abuse
              • Author by snoopy (January 10, 2008 4:19 pm ET)
                   
                Was Robertson poor before he became a "preacher"? Is he poorer now?
                Report Abuse
              • Author by worrierking (January 10, 2008 4:21 pm ET)
                   
                Of course he was rich. He had all the money they scammed while he was Governor of Arkansas and every dime they took from the pockets of the various people they've murdered throughout the years.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by roundhouse (January 11, 2008 9:50 am ET)
                   
                Did Clinton advocate for the poor and working class? His NAFTA dream has been a disaster.
                Report Abuse
            • Author by pete592 (January 10, 2008 4:20 pm ET)
                 
              I think you meant no rich liberal or progressive can advocate for the poor. A rich conservative or libertarian can advocate for the poor by invoking trickle-down economics.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by tommy (January 10, 2008 5:23 pm ET)
                   
                Why is that liberals always judge whether or not someone is an "advocate for the poor" by how they pander and talk down to certain people? By telling him how they will never make it unless they get a substantial handout from the greedy rich folks who dared to make it on their own. That the rich sob's are the real problem and if government would just redistribute their wealth towards the "poor", and level the playing field.........and oh by the way, continue to vote for us Democrats and we will be "advocates for the poor", and will keep telling you how bad off things are and how you need us in power to continue to "advocate".......yeah, that's the ticket.....
                Report Abuse
                • Author by conleytgwinn (January 10, 2008 5:36 pm ET)
                     
                  Another version of Edwards' message, tommy: If we stopped slanting law and custom to the exclusive benefit of Corporations (many of whom he did successfully sue, on his own dime, for murderous acts that affected those too poor to fight back) and the wealthy, we could provide a truly level playing field. We can tell what you think of level playing fields, though, by your insistence that Edwards is a hypocrite for working, as he has, and now seeking office, as he is, based upon that message.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by tommy (January 10, 2008 5:58 pm ET)
                       
                    Newsflash - I'm sorry, I don't deal in bumpersticker, feely good catchphrases that Edwards spouts constantly in his speeches - he panders, if you call that worthy and treating people like adults instead of children, that is your business and you are more than free to support him. This little tax shelter he set up for himself is just more proof of his arrogance and hypocrisy........it's fine for him to "level the playing field" by taking somebody else's money so he can redistribute it, but by god don't get your hands on his corporation because Medicare taxes can't touch it.......so I wonder how many medical procedures were denied some poor elderly person because Medicare didn't have the proper funds, thanks in part to people like Edwards.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by solonswine (January 10, 2008 9:30 pm ET)
                         
                      Hallelujah, Tommy you are my new hero. I can't stand the liberals and their silly "I'm just looking out for you, we're all the same" garbage, but take a look at Hillary's financial statement to the Senate. Wow!! Yeah, she KNOWS about poverty. Every one of those idiots (both sides) are millionaires PRETENDING to know what it's like to be poor. Sure, some of them may have been poor at one time, but I'm sure they've long forgotten what that was like. John Edwards is the biggest hypocrite of them all, spouting off about "corporate greed" when he knows (or should know) darned well that corporations help drive the dollar and the economy, and I bet that he holds plenty of shares of those "evil, greedy corporations" while he stands on a podium in front of a quilting club and professes that he will "punish" those filthy corporations for raping America of it's promise, etc, etc. I can't hardly stand to watch how fake they are anymore. It's nauseating.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by conleytgwinn (January 11, 2008 12:38 am ET)
                           
                        No one (here, at least) attacks the role of Corporations as tools to deploy the wealth of the nation, for the benefit of all. What Edwards attacks, and I denounce, are the preferences for Corporations, the blind eye turned to the criminal misconduct of Corporations, the tilt of the law and the custom of the nation to favor those already favored by ownership in Corporations. What Edwards advocates, and I support, is that Corporations are not citizens, have none of the political rights of citizenship; that ownership and management must assume legal (and I, at least, mean criminal) responsibility for the criminal behaviours in return for assuming control of the profits thereof; that the trickle-down approach to managing the distribution of benefits from success is disproportionate to the "risk" assumed by the participants in the economy. Beyond even Edwards' platform, that means we need some limits on the aristocracy of inherited wealth - without which, we would also be short one or more Bungles - err, Bushes - in our listing of Presidents, elected or appointed.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by christopher howard (January 11, 2008 8:54 am ET)
                             
                          "This little tax shelter he [Edwards] set up for himself is just more proof of his arrogance and hypocrisy........it's fine for him to "level the playing field" by taking somebody else's money so he can redistribute it, but by god don't get your hands on his corporation because Medicare taxes can't touch it.......so I wonder how many medical procedures were denied some poor elderly person because Medicare didn't have the proper funds, thanks in part to people like Edwards. - tommy / Thursday January 10, 2008 5:58:21 PM EST " Utterly ridiculous. By your logic no one who has ever taken a tax deduction of any kind can ever complain about any shortfall in any governmental sphere (including the military) because the dollars they failed to pay in taxes may have been the ones that failed to up-armor a military vehicle destroyed by IEDs. Have you ever taken a tax deduction? If so, why do you want our troops to die?
                          Report Abuse
                • Author by roundhouse (January 11, 2008 10:38 am ET)
                     
                  "unless they get a substantial handout from the greedy rich folks who dared to make it on their own. That the rich sob's are the real problem and if government would just redistribute their wealth" T You're so full of bull. Nobody makes it on their own, our country is there for us every step of the way to protect and enable our ability to prosper. And you can kiss my ass with your 'hand out' crap you always spout. It's a damn elitist insult to call hard working, salt of the earth folks beggars because we demand fair compensation for our labor. Punk. But you conservatives are so happy to watch wealth get distributed upward. It's cool with consevatives to keep laborers unorganized and compliant so CEO's can keep raking in salaries 450 times greater than the rank and file. That's fair to cons. Companies are paid huge chunks of public money to maintain profitability, there's no shame in demanding companies to invest in us.
                  Report Abuse
            • Author by thomp.steve9098 (January 10, 2008 4:23 pm ET)
                 
              Actually, it's Edwards message that you have to come from the "bottom" in order to be qualified to fight for fair wages, insurance and etc . . . By now I'm sure you have his speech memorized, about how he's been fighting the establishment his entire life, remembers his father waking at 5 a.m. . . and blah, blah, blah. . . . Because he speaks only of his parent's hard manual work, I'm wondering, did Edwards himself ever hold a blue collar job? Again, whether he did or not doesn't make his message any more or less compelling, but I'm just curious
              Report Abuse
              • Author by worrierking (January 10, 2008 4:36 pm ET)
                   
                Anything to back up your claim that 'it's Edwards message that you have to come from the "bottom" in order to be qualified to fight for fair wages, insurance and etc . . . " Wouldn't that mean that someone like FRD wasn't qualified to fight for fair wages?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by thomp.steve9098 (January 10, 2008 4:46 pm ET)
                     
                  His poor childhood and blue collar parents are the premise to nearly every speech he gives. I can hear him now, "this is personal to me. . . . , my father and mother came home with dust . . . , woke up at 5. am., and on and on. . " He wants to convey that only he, as opposed to HC or anyone else, knows what it's like to be working-class and can therefore represent them. Then, he pretends that as an attorney he fought for 20 years against the establishment. It's surely not my opinion that fdr was unqualified. He's actually a hero of mine. But I'm sure he didn't claim that he knew what it's like to be working-class merely because he had parents who were working class either.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by solon (January 10, 2008 4:59 pm ET)
                       
                    Saying it is personal to HIM is not saying no one NOT like him can champion the same message. That is a non sequitur
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by tommy (January 10, 2008 5:04 pm ET)
                       
                    Exactly, and what I find so insulting and condescending is the way Edwards goes on about his father and grandfather working hard, which I have no doubt they did, and had no government help but were able to make it and allow the circumstances for John to be a successful trial lawyer........he says they made it, and he made it.......but us, or you, can't possibly do it without the government's help. He is talking down and treating his supporters like helpless children, how incredibly insulting not to mention pandering, he is condescending and a hypocrite. No wonder he is floundering in the votes, thankfully.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by dbeden4153 (January 10, 2008 6:31 pm ET)
                         
                      Tommy, it's my view that times change, and thus government laws and regulations change too. Have you noticed how people keep talking about the "widening gap between the rich and the poor"? Do you think the rich are just working harder? and the poor are just getting lazier? You know, it's pretty hard to pull yourself up by your bootstraps if the government won't let you own bootstraps. In other words, pandering to corporations hasn't really helped people. In fact, I'd argue that it has hurt citizens of the United States. Case in point, the article that came out about how Blackwater guards used a form of tear gas just to clear the road so they can get through, using it on both Iraqi citizens and our own military. Yet our own military can't even use the stuff, unless ordered directly by the President or someone close to him (I think. Either way, it's very difficult to get clearance to use it.) Now, because of "privatization," we have a corporate army who is not accountable to anyone, except for the shareholders. International law? nah. US law? nah. None of it. They can do what they please, and it has directly resulted in harming our military. And yet, while our government gives no bid contracts to multi-billion dollar buddies so they can get richer (cuz we all need a $25000 umbrella stand), our already absurdly high health care costs are rising higher (so God forbid if you get sick.) Now that's not a real problem, if you have the money to pay for it. But if you don't, you may end up having to choose between eating and paying for that medication you need to take. And yet, it's those people who pay a higher percentage in taxes than the rich people. Now you tell me, how are we going to fix this problem (because it is a problem)? Would more tax cuts help? Or would altering our health care system so that money is not the driving force behind who gets care and who doesn't? How about no longer using incentives for claims agents who reject the most claims, thus saving the company money?
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by tommy (January 10, 2008 6:50 pm ET)
                           
                        DB, You just put your finger on one of the big problems - "while our government gives no bid contracts to multi-billion dollar buddies so they can get richer (cuz we all need a $25000 umbrella stand)".........in other words, stifling competition is the root of this evil. It's competition that has made eye laser surgery far more affordable now than just five years ago, it's competition that has made cosmetic surgery safer and cheaper over the last decade - that is the point > put government in charge and the incentive for competition is eliminated and we all suffer......I don't have the answers, but it is not in government run health care, or panderers like Edwards who only want more control over our lives, and retain their power. The answers lie in getting all parties involved to work through solutions, not pitting one group against another as Edwards does via class warfare all the time - us vs. the pharmaceutical companies.....us vs. the insurance companies......us vs. them - that is his mantra and I, for one, am glad it isn't taking any foothold with Democrats, good for them.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by onionhead (January 10, 2008 7:38 pm ET)
                             
                          "The answers lie in getting all parties involved to work through solutions, not pitting one group against another as Edwards does via class warfare all the time" --Tommy Aren't you always on this site taking this kind of polemic stance when it comes to immigration? And BTW, you libertarians are an odd bunch. You must really think that Europe and Canada resemble the backward totalitarian state in Ayn Rand's novel, Anthem. (Don't get me wrong, it is certainly not the utopian state that we libs sometimes view it as).
                          Report Abuse
                        • Author by chharris7416 (January 10, 2008 7:42 pm ET)
                             
                          Tommy, do you not understand that it is the government that regulates industry so that there will be competition? Do you not understand that government regulations are why a cartel like DeBeers has paid hundreds of millions (or at least been fined) b/c of illegal buisness practices? Do you not understand that the government breaks up monopolies? There has never been nor will there ever be a true free market. Why? The republicans want free markets for the poor and a nanny state for the rich. Bail out after bail out after bail out. How many were for the consumers? I can think of one (it is "happening" currently) and there is good evidence that it is pretty much a bogus event. Remember, free market for the poor and nanny state for the rich.
                          Report Abuse
                        • Author by onionhead (January 10, 2008 7:44 pm ET)
                             
                          "The answers lie in getting all parties involved to work through solutions, not pitting one group against another as Edwards does via class warfare all the time" --Tommy Aren't you always on this site taking this kind of polemic stance when it comes to immigration? And BTW, you libertarians are an odd bunch. You must really think that Europe and Canada resemble the backward totalitarian state in Ayn Rand's novel, Anthem. (And don't get me wrong, it is not the utopian state that we libs sometimes view it as).
                          Report Abuse
                        • Author by MoonbatYouBet (January 10, 2008 7:53 pm ET)
                             
                          No, not the laser surgery argument again. Laser eye surgery and cosmetic surgeries that are elective, not necessary, and are very rarely covered by most forms of medical insurance. This means that they are not an appropriate or accurate basis for comparison to necessary medical procedures or procedures that are covered by insurance. There is not a functioning free market model in American health care. It is a market grossly distorted by the insurance industry, immensely missing in consumer information and often consumer choice. We do not currently have a free market system for our healthcare, moving towards a more socialist model would only be improving an already very broken model.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by jamesB (January 10, 2008 10:53 pm ET)
                               
                            you must be a moonbat. if you don't think that technology and competition haven't lowered the price of things, you are delusional, What about plasma tvs, dvd players, almost anything, all of these have seen dramatic price decreases due to competition, health care is the same boat. If you want socialized medicine move to canada or the UK,
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by HuntingtonBeachLefty (January 10, 2008 11:54 pm ET)
                                 
                              Healthcare and plasma TVs. James, Moonbat is secure enough to jokingly use the screen name moonbat . You're just not very swift.
                              Report Abuse
                            • Author by worrierking (January 11, 2008 7:04 am ET)
                                 
                              Do you mean to say that in order for us to have affordable healthcare that we'll have to go to China to receive the treatment, just like if you buy electronic equipment, it's manufactured in China? Doesn't the country of origin, the workplace rules, wages paid in these countries and the environmental policies of these countries, or lack of, play a rather big part in the price we pay for our TVs and Internet tubes?
                              Report Abuse
                            • Author by MoonbatYouBet (January 11, 2008 11:23 am ET)
                                 
                              Way to miss the point. Health care in this country, other than very specific and isolated instances like laser eye surgery and cosmetic surgery, does not operate on the same sort of free market that dvds and plasma tvs and other nonessential consumer goods do. You can go into the store and find out all kinds of information about an electronics purchase, you can decide for yourself whether you really need it, you can judge the price versus quality on your own. Can you do any of that with medical care? Can you price shop for your medication or procedures, can you make an informed decision on what you really need? Or are you pretty much left to the whims of your insurance provider and the arcane and hard to decipher statements issued by your doctor? Free market health care is a myth.
                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by roundhouse (January 11, 2008 11:51 am ET)
                                   
                                That's right. Healthcare is not a commodity, it's a human right.
                                Report Abuse
                                • Author by tommy (January 11, 2008 12:21 pm ET)
                                     
                                  No, healthcare is not a "human right", how ridiculous. You make your case for government run health care for various reasons, but that ain't one of them. Show me in the constitution, and not your liberal interpretation of it, where health care is a right guaranteed to anyone. It is not.
                                  Report Abuse
                                  • Author by roundhouse (January 11, 2008 12:37 pm ET)
                                       
                                    Show me where the Constitution put a price tag on our lives. Show me where our government's responsibility to the common good is slated to be farmed out to private interests. And I will draw your attention to the International Bill of Human Rights, of which the U.S. is signatory "Article 23. (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work. (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection. (4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests. Article 24. Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay. Article 25. (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control." http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
                                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by roundhouse (January 11, 2008 10:55 am ET)
                         
                      "what I find so insulting and condescending is the way Edwards goes on about his father and grandfather working hard, which I have no doubt they did, and had no government help" Tommy. You're a liar or uninformed. Edwards always cites the how America's great commonwealth as the means that helped keep his family from sinking. Furthermore, his message is about giving us a voice in our democracy. He talks about the hostile takeover of our government by big money. He rails against the disproportionate power that big business wields in getting legislation passed that affects us all from the bottom up. Again. You're a liar or uninformed and I would add that you are a condescending prig for insulting working people as moochers. Maybe your hatred of our government, or simply of economic populists, blinds your ability to see the perversions of capitalism conservative deregulation and rampant privatization schemes has wrought on the greater good.
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by roundhouse (January 11, 2008 11:47 am ET)
                         
                      "No wonder he is floundering in the votes, thankfully."-tommy You wish Edwards could be counted out so early. The truth is that this about delegates. Obama has 25, Hillary 24 and my man Edwards has 18. This is a three way race for the Presidency between three seriously electable Democratic candidates.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by tommy (January 11, 2008 1:16 pm ET)
                           
                        With all due respect, I have as much chance of sleeping in the White House as John Edwards does - he should get out now, even his former running mate thumbed his nose at him, that tells you something. Even the Democrats in the primaries have repudiated his class warfare rhetoric, he is the most divisive candidate in a long time, people aren't buying it and want no part of his vision of us vs. them, as I said, thankfully.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by roundhouse (January 12, 2008 2:20 am ET)
                             
                          Keep dreamin' home boy. Even Huck and Hillary are picking up Edwards' populist mantle and repudiating the vicious class war that's being waged on working people by corporate elites.
                          Report Abuse
              • Author by left of center (January 11, 2008 9:39 am ET)
                   
                Edwards worked in the same mill as his father during his college years to help pay his way through - this has been said many times, but you and the rest of your conservative brethren only hear the parts that support your narrow views of the world.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by tommy (January 11, 2008 2:04 pm ET)
                     
                  Yes, and Edwards has the condescending gall to say that his grandfather made it, his father made it, and he made it - but those he asks to vote for him somehow can't make it.....that is exactly what he is saying. In other words he is essentially saying "You are too stupid or inept to make it like I did, and you need governments help, sorry, you just can't do it"........I don't vote for candidates who talk down to me, sorry.
                  Report Abuse
      • Author by snoopy (January 10, 2008 4:10 pm ET)
           
        Tommy, if subchapter S corporations are legal, why are you bashing him for using it? I formed a private company and darned right I created a sub chapter s corporation. If you don't like his positions, his friends, or his background that's your business. But knocking him for doing something legal? Give me a break, that's just petty.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by tommy (January 10, 2008 4:19 pm ET)
             
          Oh come on, don't sit there and tell me how broken the health care system is and exploit anybody you can get your hands on, and then make your millions suing doctors only to increase health care costs across the board and find loopholes and tax shelters to avoid paying a tax directly to Medicare. If you are fine with that, knock your lights out.......it's just more hypocrisy from him.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by snoopy (January 10, 2008 4:27 pm ET)
               
            Well, what you call hypocracy is legal and smart business sense to me. I know you don't like him, but really, this assumption that you have to follow a high and mighty trail that you can never, ever stray from if you want to champion the poor is just bad oates on your part. Heck, FDR was a lawyer and grew up in a priveledged life, using your logic he should be a hipocrite too, right?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by tex (January 10, 2008 11:21 pm ET)
                 
              At least, by Tommy's lights, Jesus was not a hypocrite. He preached helping the poor and healing the sick too, but he was reportedly very poor. Of course, this made it easier for the status-quo conservatives of the time to nail him to a cross. It's really amazing how the rightwing will excoriate an achiever, someone who has made a fortune by honest labor in America, if they happen to have Liberal ideas.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by Blue Dog (January 10, 2008 5:42 pm ET)
               
            RE"suing doctors only to increase health care costs across the board " Tommy, suing doctors doesn't make healthcare costs go up. Doctors committing malpractice does.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by tommy (January 10, 2008 5:47 pm ET)
                 
              You don't think suing doctors has any affect on health care costs? Ah, ok.......
              Report Abuse
              • Author by worrierking (January 10, 2008 6:13 pm ET)
                   
                What are people who've been harmed by negligent doctors to do? Grin and bear it so that the negligence can be repeated on another patient just to keep heath care costs down?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by tommy (January 10, 2008 6:16 pm ET)
                     
                  Worrier, No - but ambulance chasing trial lawyers who foist frivolous lawsuits upon doctors to tie up our courts just to make a buck for themselves, most definitely increases health care and insurance costs - and is the necessary reason for tort reform...........It is every lawsuit?, there again, No, but I guess if you believe that never happens or is very rare, then we disagree.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by MoonbatYouBet (January 10, 2008 7:58 pm ET)
                       
                    I'll give you that there may be at least a quarter as many ambulance chasing lawyers filing frivolous and unneeded suits as there are corporate executives who are negligent in consumer safety, exploitative of their workers, deceptive in their advertising, criminal in their financial activities and overcompensated in massive amounts greater than any worth they actually produce for their companies. But why is it that those on the right only seem to notice those lawyers?
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by left of center (January 11, 2008 9:50 am ET)
                       
                    Tommy, this argument is a red herring - medical malpractice accounts for approximately 0.55% of all medical costs in this country, so you can just drop that ridiculous argument right now. Cumulative jury awards have ranged between $2.5B and $4.0B per year of a $1.7 Trillion industry. I would look more at CEOs of companies like United Healthcare getting a $1.8Billion retirement package as the source.
                    Report Abuse
              • Author by Clevenative (January 10, 2008 9:08 pm ET)
                   
                I wish I had a link to the C-Span special I saw the other day that explained the REAL costs and waste. Lawsuits are a part - but a fraction of what anti-universal healthcare wingnuts have you believe. If I find the link I'll get it to you, Tommy.
                Report Abuse
      • Author by jeter2 (January 10, 2008 4:21 pm ET)
           
        Excellent post Tommy, I'm not surprised no one has even tried to refute it[thus far] Haha! Comrade Edwards simply lives like the old Soviet elite. He offers crumbs to the peasants while he squirrels away his fortune, builds himself a 29,000-square-foot mansion, & has a vacation home or dacha as them Commies call them, on the Carolina coast.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Clevenative (January 10, 2008 4:34 pm ET)
             
          "Crumbs to the peasants"? Bad analogy JETER2. The man has done more for the "peasants", both personally and through politics, than all the other candidates of both parties combined.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by Clevenative (January 10, 2008 4:27 pm ET)
           
        I cannot stand hearing anyone call Edwards a hypocrite because of anything he does or has done with his personal finances. He did nothing illegal in 1995, and nothing that any Republican wouldn’t have supported or done under the same circumstances.

        His personal finances have no bearing on the contributions he has made to the cause of poverty. Because of his wealth, until the guy himself is living in a box under a bridge, people of your ilk will be labeling him a hypocrite. You can label him anything you want, but his record shows where his heart is and what his intentions are – and these are manifested by his humble beginnings and personal experiences. The man is a true “American dream” story, and conservative Republicans resent him for that.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by MHK (January 10, 2008 4:29 pm ET)
           
        If we took the combine 2006 tax write offs for income and investments from all of the Republican contenders, I wonder how much body armor or additional Hummers could have purchased for our troops when they went without? I wonder how much of that money could have been applied to the VA budget to fully fund their programs.... I keep hearing them say that our vets deserve all the best, yet we keep hearing reports on homeless vets, poor service or a lack of benefits. Applying your logic, en-riching themselves further must be more important then actually supporting our troops since all of the items listed above are supported by taxes.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by johnny_nyc8351 (January 10, 2008 4:41 pm ET)
           
        How do you, the WSJ or anybody else know what Edwards did with the money he was legally able to shield from the tax man? You're always arguing that individuals and local government are more efficient than the Feds with getting help to the people who need it. What Edwards did seems to fall in line with that philosophy.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by LarryE (January 10, 2008 4:58 pm ET)
           
        Oh, please. This is just more fatuous "rich man advocating for poor = hypocrite" blather. All this does is add the phrase "who used legal means to cut his tax bill" after "man." That is, it adds words to the claim with adding even a feather of weight to the argument.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by MHK (January 10, 2008 3:42 pm ET)
         
      I'm so very happy that Glen didn't have any complications during his recent brain surgery. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/09/glenn-beck-i-had-surger_n_80800.html
      Report Abuse
    • Author by the crapture (January 10, 2008 3:48 pm ET)
         
      Until he owns up to his own leanings and puts on his nice tan coloured shirt and the accompanying red, white and black armband bearing the hakenkreuz logo, Beck should just crawl back into whichever wingnut petrie dish he oozed out of.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by NiceguyEddie (January 10, 2008 4:07 pm ET)
         
      How many times have you heard these creeps say "Work hard and you'll succed in america" or "an honest day's pay for an honest day's work"? Yet, they vote to supress minimum wage increases, fights workers rights, fight unions every chance thye get, give tax breaks to company's that outsource jobs overseas, destroy trade barriers that protect US manufacturing... They are on the wrong side of every labor issue in the book, if they want to cling to the above statements. Why doesn't Beck just come and say "You know - I hate these blue collar types. I hat these joe-Lunchbox guys that think that just because they show up to work 40+ hourse a week that they should somehow be able to earn a living and participate in the american dream. Why can't all these unwashed middle class wannabe's just go away?"
      Report Abuse
      • Author by thomp.steve9098 (January 10, 2008 4:10 pm ET)
           
        You sound like my guys, Pat Buchanan and Lou Dobbs. Good for you Eddie. Did you just read Buchanan's new book? Great read, huh?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by anotheramerican (January 10, 2008 4:25 pm ET)
           
        Nice, What about the fact that everytime you raise minimum wage you throw people out of work. That doesn't sound too compasionate to me. In fact it is just the opposite. A comprehensive survey of minimum wage studies found that a 10 percent increase in the minimum wage reduces employment of young workers by 1 percent to 2 percent. To put that into perspective: * Gov. Schwarzenegger's proposed 15 percent increase in the state minimum wage would destroy about 35,000 to 70,000 unskilled jobs — putting 1.5 to 3 percent of young Californians out of work. * Overall, the proposed minimum wage increase in California would eliminate about 70,000 to 140,000 jobs. * A 15 percent increase in the minimum wage nationwide would destroy about 290,000 to 590,000 young people's jobs, and about 400,000 to 800,000 jobs overall. http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba550/
        Report Abuse
        • Author by snoopy (January 10, 2008 4:35 pm ET)
             
          There is no evidence of job loss from the last minimum wage increase. A 1998 EPI study failed to find any systematic, significant job loss associated with the 1996-97 minimum wage increase. In fact, following the most recent increase in the minimum wage in 1996-97, the low-wage labor market performed better than it had in decades (e.g., lower unemployment rates, increased average hourly wages, increased family income, decreased poverty rates). Studies of the 1990-91 federal minimum wage increase, as well as studies by David Card and Alan Krueger of several state minimum wage increases, also found no measurable negative impact on employment. New economic models that look specifically at low-wage labor markets help explain why there is little evidence of job loss associated with minimum wage increases. These models recognize that employers may be able to absorb some of the costs of a wage increase through higher productivity, lower recruiting and training costs, decreased absenteeism, and increased worker morale. A recent Fiscal Policy Institute (FPI) study of state minimum wages found no evidence of negative employment effects on small businesses. Sources Appelbaum, Eileen, et al. 2004. The Minimum Wage and Working Women. Bernstein, Jared, and Chauna Brocht. 2000. The Next Step: The New Minimum Wage Proposals and the Old Opposition. Washington, D.C.: Economic Policy Institute. Bernstein, Jared, and John Schmitt. 1998 Making Work Pay: The Impact of the 1996-97 Minimum Wage Increase. Washington, D.C.: Economic Policy Institute. Bernstein, Jared, and Isaac Shapiro. 2006. Buying Power of Minimum Wage at 51-Year Low. Washington, D.C.: Economic Policy Institute. Bernstein, Jared, Heidi Hartmann, and John Schmitt. 1999. The Minimum Wage Increase: A Working Woman's Issue. Washington, D.C.: Economic Policy Institute. Card, David. 1992. Using regional variation in wages to measure the effects of the federal minimum wage. Industrial and Labor Relations Review. Vol. 46, No. 1, pp. 22-37. Card, David, and Alan B. Krueger. 1994. Minimum wages and employment: a case study of the fast-food industry in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. American Economic Review. Vol. 84. No. 4. pp. 772-93. Card, David, and Alan B. Krueger. 1995. Myth and Measurement: The New Economics of the Minimum Wage. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Card, David, and Alan B. Krueger. 2000. Minimum wages and employment: a case study of the fast-food industry in New Jersey and Pennsylvania: reply. American Economic Review. Vol. 90, No. 5, pp. 1397-1420. Chasanov, Amy. 2004. No Longer Getting By: An Increase in the Minimum Wage Is Long Overdue. Washington, D.C.: Economic Policy Institute. EPI. 2000, 2005. EPI Datazone. Fiscal Policy Institute. 2004. State Minimum Wages and Employment in Small Business. Available at www.fiscalpolicy.org. Fortin and Lemiuex. 1996. As cited in Mishel, Lawrence, Jared Bernstein, and John Schmitt. The State of Working America 1998-99. Washington, D.C.: Economic Policy Institute. Rasell , Edith, Jared Bernstein, and Heather Boushey. 2000. Step Up, Not Out: The Case for Raising the Federal Minimum Wage for Workers in Every State. Washington, D.C.: Economic Policy Institute. Sawhill , Isabel, and Adam Thomas. 2001. "A Hand Up for the Bottom Third." Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution. Thompson, Jeff. 1999. Oregon 's Increasing Minimum Wage Brings Raises to Former Welfare Recipients and Other Low-Wage Workers Without Job Losses. Oregon Center for Public Policy.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by snoopy (January 10, 2008 4:39 pm ET)
               
            I wish MMFA would get this fixed. This stripping of newline and all is getting real annoying...
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Clevenative (January 10, 2008 6:37 pm ET)
                 
              Let a little of that frustration out and send them an email. They might not even know of problems users are having posting unless someone tells them about it- and the more the better.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by anotheramerican (January 10, 2008 4:50 pm ET)
               
            Similarly, raising the minimum wage brings with it unintended consequences that run counter to lawmakers’ aim of helping the working poor. Like anything else, when the price of labor rises, businesses buy less of it. The role of the minimum wage in raising unemployment is well known and well documented. see: http://ideas.repec.org/a/ucp/jlabec/v18y2000i4p653-80.html Burkhauser, Couch, and Wittenburg estimate the employment effects of federal minimum wage increases using monthly Current Population Survey (CPS) data from 1979 through 1997. They find that the empirical differences in the new minimum wage literature based on CPS data primarily can be traced to alternative methods of controlling for macroeconomic conditions. They argue that the macroeconomic controls commonly included in models where no employment impact is found are inappropriate. They consistently find a significant but modest negative relationship between minimum wage increases and teenage employment using alternative controls or allowing employer responses to the policy to occur with some delay.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by LarryE (January 10, 2008 5:40 pm ET)
                 
              The role of the minimum wage in raising unemployment is well known and well documented. So you find one study from seven years ago citing data now 10 years old which found a "modest" negative impact on part of the minimum wage workforce (teenagers) and that's supposed to override every other study? "Well known and well documented" is an attempt at, in a favorite phrase of an old friend, "proof by blatant assertion." In fact, the very premise of the argument - that as the cost of something goes up, less of it is purchased - is utter nonsense except when applied to goods and services with large-scale elasticity, that is, cases where cost is in fact the only consideration. In most real-world cases, there are limits both to how little and how much of a commodity you can have. Consumers, for example, have minimum requirements for food, for heat, for fuel, and rising prices cannot reduce that minimum but must instead be paid. (Sometimes the connection breaks down even under conditions other than need, as seen by the fact that demand for gasoline continued to rise even as prices soared, contrary to the "more A means less B" claims.) A given business has a certain minimum number of employees required to do the work. Raising the cost of those employees does not change that fact. Therefore, to accept the argument re: minimum wage, we must say that businesses routinely employ unnecessary workers - which, if true, means they are acting contrary to their own interests. They then are not the "rational actors" described by economic theory so their behavior can't be predicted by it and the "minimum wage = unemployment" argument collapses under the logic of its own premises. Final thought: Why is it that those who oppose hikes in the minimum wage by waxing poetic over their concern for the (purely hypothetical) unemployed never seem to mention the (undeniable) improvement in the standard of living of those workers who get the raise?
              Report Abuse
        • Author by pete592 (January 10, 2008 4:41 pm ET)
             
          "everytime you raise minimum wage you throw people out of work." Got anything besides studies and scary scenarios that haven't happened? My great state of Oregon has always had a one of the highest minimum wages in the nation, yet Oregon has yet to crumble and fall into the ocean like your scary scenarios tell us will happen. People are still clamoring to come here, and new housing continues to explode.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by anotheramerican (January 10, 2008 4:55 pm ET)
               
            Pete, Yep. I bet people are falling all over themselves for those high paying minimum wage jobs. (No doubt some are.) It would be interesting if you could show where all those new immigrants are falling on the wage scale. Is the influx due to the higher minimum wage or is it some other factor? Congratulations on Oregon staying above water!
            Report Abuse
            • Author by pete592 (January 10, 2008 5:39 pm ET)
                 
              I was talking about Oregon's population and economic growth, not immigration, unless you also meant Americans moving from one state to another. It is that growth, according to your scary scenarios, that is not supposed to exist because high minimum wages kill businesses, right?. Well, to your disappointment, the businesses are not folding by the hundreds because of high wages, they are staying open because people are making a living wage, they're staying off welfare and they have money to spend. Portland's northwest section has exploded with real estate and retail businesses despite the high minimum wage that was supposed to spell certain doom. Your minimum wage fear mongering is nothing more than claptrap, at least when it comes to where I live.
              Report Abuse
        • Author by solon (January 10, 2008 5:01 pm ET)
             
          What about the fact you guys keep SAYING that but when the mininum wage is raised it doesnt seem to happen? What about the fact minimum wage jobs are fairly easy to get so if a MW worker is laid off on Monday then goes to work on Wednesday for more money its a net GAIN for him?
          Report Abuse
        • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (January 10, 2008 6:44 pm ET)
             
          From AnotherAmerican's NCPA site: "The law of demand says that at a higher price, less is demanded, and it applies to grapefruit, cars, movie tickets and, yes, labor." Next to this is a chart showing the loss of jobs according to the percentage change in the minimum wage. And written below the chart; "Source:Author's calculations" Isn't the NCPA Pete DuPont and Newt Gingrich's scam? LOL.I didn't think anybody swallowed this stuff.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by funnymanpants (January 10, 2008 8:24 pm ET)
             
          Except, other studies show something different: http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/briefingpapers_bp150 If you want to start complaining about a 1% job loss, how many jobs are lost due to a war? http://www.cepr.net/content/view/1155/8/ And if we take your argument to its logical conclusion, we should never raise minimum wage.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by conleytgwinn (January 10, 2008 4:29 pm ET)
         
      Give me an unlimited supply of Corporate Media spokespersons on one side, (Beck in or out at your option) and a financially successful tort lawyer on the other, and I'll choose the tort lawyer every time. Give me a troglodyte (Beck require as the prototype) on one side, and a reformer on the other, never would I choose the troglodyte. Edwards is criticized without reason by so many here, and all those slime speaking the Corporate line as well, that we never get to hear what he offers. At most, a snippet of something that may smell controversial, and 168 hours of multi-channel criticism of that snippet. He has done exactly as he should have done, with regard to the tax issue - and so has every sane person (including me) in his position. That is the true irony here: he is being called a hypocrite precisely for espousing an end to such loopholes, as though to care about the future of our nation must somehow command one's performance under current law, to accept disadvantage.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by worrierking (January 10, 2008 4:44 pm ET)
           
        I don't understand why so many people have been convinced that tort lawyers are the problem. Don't those benevolent corporations also have teams of high priced lawyers, whose job it is to protect their clients interests? And don't the two sides square off in a court room? Is it the judicial process they have the problem with? I wonder how those people would feel if their lives had been destroyed by a faulty product or a negligent doctor and or hospital.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by friedbergboy1422 (January 10, 2008 4:52 pm ET)
             
          Worrier, Tort lawyers are hated until they are needed, check out Justice Bork's latest (Mr. Tort Reform himself) http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/21079
          Report Abuse
        • Author by thomp.steve9098 (January 10, 2008 4:53 pm ET)
             
          Both tort lawyers and corp. lawyers are part of the same scam. Tort lawyers embellish or lie about their clients' injuries, while corp attorneys bilk their clients for hours, all the while knowing that the case very likely will settle in any event.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by friedbergboy1422 (January 10, 2008 4:56 pm ET)
               
            Thomp, Seriously? You are that cynical? Yes, there are some, but the profession is by no means a scam. Read this about one of the top tort reform advocates this country has ever seen: http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/21079
            Report Abuse
            • Author by thomp.steve9098 (January 10, 2008 5:02 pm ET)
                 
              Thanks, I will read the link when MM makes it available. I am interested in what Bork has to say about it. I'm not as cynical as I let on, and certainly believe that there are many meritorious cases brought against doctors and so on, but so many are bullsh*t too, and exist only to provide tort attorneys a steady, and large, salary.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by friedbergboy1422 (January 10, 2008 5:36 pm ET)
                   
                Not to totally ruin the surprise, but it seems Mr. Bork is making some interesting claims against his alma mater. If you want to read it, you can copy and paste it. Basically, Bork is a major, major hypocrite.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by IowaDem (January 11, 2008 10:07 am ET)
                   
                Wrong! "Frivolous" lawsuits do not make it to trial. They are thrown out long before there are much in the way of costs. A lawyer does not have the time or inclination to take on a "frivolous" lawsuit. Often, these lawyers will not make any money unless they WIN the case. They are highly motivated to avoid "frivolous" lawsuits at all costs. This whole argument is completely false and without basis. Period.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by thomp.steve9098 (January 11, 2008 11:06 am ET)
                     
                  Hmmm. I'm guessing you're an ambulance chaser. Frivolous suits are initiated all the time. You're right, they don't go to trial; they settle. The bullsh*t cases enables these shysters to earn a steady income. Period.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by friedbergboy1422 (January 11, 2008 2:45 pm ET)
                       
                    Thomp, If BS suits are initiated all the time, those who are defending against them have the right to claim the lawsuit is frivolous. If they are successful, the lawyer bringing the frivolous suit can face serious penalties. Do you have any statistics? Did you read the article about Bork yet? Mr. Tort Reform slipped and fell and the Yale Club, broke his leg and is suing for a million bucks. He has become what he purportedly hates.
                    Report Abuse
          • Author by worrierking (January 10, 2008 5:01 pm ET)
               
            So the United States judicial system is a scam. If it is, that's not really the issue. The issue is, with the system in place today, how does someone whose life has been devastated get satisfaction without resorting to the courts? And if it was you or your loved one whose life was changed, wouldn't you want someone like Edwards on your side? Or would you hope that the corporation doctor or hospital would make restitution on their own?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by thomp.steve9098 (January 10, 2008 5:09 pm ET)
                 
              Actually, thinking about it more, and in all honesty, I agree with what you just said -- I think. In my opinion, in order to ensure legal remedies to all legitimately aggrieved parties, the system has to accept the fact that many frivolous suits will slip by as well. And I agree that everyone 'hates' tort lawyers until they need one. However, and unfortunately, I also seriously think that many people rip off the public with chumped up injuries and lawsuits.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by friedbergboy1422 (January 10, 2008 5:49 pm ET)
                   
                Well, then maybe, if you really believe that there are so many frivolous suits, you should become a lawyer for one of these health insurance/big boy companies. The consequences are severe on the lawyer who brings a frivolous suit. Either that or support your local ethics (lawyer ethics) committee.
                Report Abuse
    • Author by tex (January 10, 2008 4:54 pm ET)
         
      The ghost of Joe McCarthy is obviously haunting Beck. Perhaps someone should clue Beck in on what McCarthy's FATE was. Or perhaps remind Beck that Democratic Majorities in Congress "fought" the Cold War for FORTY YEARS, and DEMOCRATS provided the funding that eventually bankrupted the USSR? Nah. Red Baiting and Fearmongering is much better propaganda fodder. REALITY just gets in the way.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by tman418 (January 10, 2008 5:00 pm ET)
         
      Wow. God forbid John Edwards is a "we" person and not an "I" person.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by solon (January 10, 2008 5:14 pm ET)
         
      Why doesnt Beck just put on the conical DUNCE cap and get it over with.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by friedbergboy1422 (January 10, 2008 6:00 pm ET)
           
        Because he doesn't know how to spell dunce? I don't know, you make a good point ;).
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Clevenative (January 10, 2008 6:43 pm ET)
         
      I wish I could get a tally of the "net worth" of all of the users in this thread. I guarantee you I could identify the Edwards bashers from supporters on those stats alone. Enough said?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by conleytgwinn (January 10, 2008 6:58 pm ET)
           
        I'd show you mine . . .
        Report Abuse
        • Author by conleytgwinn (January 10, 2008 7:00 pm ET)
             
          Roughly 95th percentile (net worth); 60th (current income).
          Report Abuse
        • Author by Clevenative (January 10, 2008 7:58 pm ET)
             
          I wasn’t expecting my wish to be taken literally – but thanks for helping prove my point. I’m batting 1000. As for your earlier thread comments vs. your figures themselves… don’t get me started, please.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by conleytgwinn (January 11, 2008 12:45 am ET)
               
            Since I retired several (many) years ago, the disproportion between income and net worth is somewhat misleading; but if your point is, that those who (now) have, are prone to support Edwards, while I cannot deny the result, I would require explication of the methodology.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by mescal (January 11, 2008 1:55 am ET)
         
      I cannot emphasize this point enough... Glen Beck is a dumf*ck's dumbf*ck.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by puttforever4682 (January 11, 2008 4:47 pm ET)
         
      One way to lessen the impact of tort settlements might be to have single payer health care system. Suing for medical costs would disappear from the equation.
      Report Abuse