Open thread

We’ve all seen those “Reject R-67″ ads the insurance industry is running, featuring a fake family making fake claims about how R-67 will raise your premiums, or the laughably fake law firm made out to look like a parody of your typical lawyer joke. Well the first “Approve R-67” ad just hit the airwaves, and it somehow manages to use a real person — not an actor — to speak honestly about the kind of real personal tragedy the bill addresses.

Personally, I find the real person more persuasive than the fictional one.

Comments

  1. 1

    liberal_crusher spews:

    TinStein Dictator –

    You are indeed hypocritical to the extreme. You CENSOR people here and yet every chance you get you employ the Stalinesque tactic of complaining YOU are the one being censored. How long have you been on the radio???? That FACT speaks volumes to you LIES about liberals free speech being hampered. It has ALWAYS been you liberals censoring people. NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND!

  2. 2

    liberal_crusher spews:

    LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS AT WORK!

    The liberal biased media doesn’t print party affiliation when it is a DEMOCRAT and they are hiring terrorists making videos about the “Jihad Way”. See for yourself:

    http://www.breitbart.com/artic....._article=1

    Democrats are political animals that would sacrifice their country and their own mother if necessary to gain political power. Where are the Roosevelts, the Trumans and others who long ago would have driven such treasonous scum from a once respected political party??

    Please keep trying to tell us all there is no liberal media bias. They tell us how you turn lead to gold and water to wine.

  3. 3

    YLB spews:

    right wing idiot @ 1 and 2

    The media is biased – towards the Conservatives. The prime example? The reasons for invading Iraq were bullshit and the media went along except for McClatchy who actually fact checked what the Chimp meister’s minions were claiming.

    And because McClatchy didn’t have a beltway presence at the time – they were ignored.

    The traditional media are full of suck ups to the Republicans – Judy Miller, Steno Sue Schmidt and many others.

    You are full of right wing bullshit.

  4. 4

    Politically Incorrect spews:

    Why doesn’t the add ask why leukemia is so damn expensive to treat? Why was the treatment so expensive that the insurance company couldn’t justify picking up the tab?

  5. 6

    YLB spews:

    The right wing idiot @ 1 and 2 is indeed hopelessly confused and in the thrall of right wing lies.

  6. 7

    proud leftist spews:

    The group sponsoring the over-the-top anti-67 ads that have been running–I think they call themselves Consumer Federation of America–has taken chutzpah to a new level. The group is comprised of insurance companies. The concept of the insurance industry lobbying for consumer interests is a bit too much to bear. The legislation at issue in R-67 is pro-consumer from any angle; legislation holding insurers accountable for unreasonable delays and denials was long overdue in this state.

  7. 8

    Proud To Be An Ass spews:

    “Why doesn’t the add ask why leukemia is so damn expensive to treat?”

    Because the issue is the obligation of the carriers to live up to their contractual commitments. Since the marketplace does not punish firms that welsh out (in fact, it rewards them), the door is open to ‘moral hazard’ and market failure.

    So why do you support failure? If you tell me you are a republican, then I’ll understand.

  8. 9

    michael spews:

    @2
    “Democrats are political animals that would sacrifice their country and their own mother if necessary to gain political power. Where are the Roosevelts, the Trumans and others who long ago would have driven such treasonous scum from a once respected political party??”

    Where are the Lincon’s, the Roosevelt’s (TR this time) and the Eisenhower’s?

  9. 10

    Piper Scott spews:

    R-67 is raw meat to the trial bar. Treble damages = triple fees = bigger houses and boats and fancier Beemer’s.

    I’m not hearing a lot of argument on how it’s good policy because there’s such a huge problem with insurance companies to warrant an almost guaranteed increase in insurance premiums to Joe and Jane Doakes.

    R-67 provides huge incentives to push dubious litigation since insurance companies, businesses that they are, will settle and simply pass the cost along to consumers.

    Here’s a proposal…I’d be more inclined to support this if the treble damage provisions specifically provided that attorney’s fees wouldn’t be affected by them. In other words, a trial lawyer’s contingent fee wouldn’t increase should they be awarded.

    I’m just suspicious of those who claim they’re for the little guy from whom they get rich off of.

    The truth of the matter is that the tort bar is demanding not justice, but riches for tort lawyers.

    “Attack insurance companies and make us rich!” Isn’t that what R-67 is really all about?

    The Piper

  10. 11

    michael spews:

    While I’m supportive of I-67 I’m very suspicious of the growing group of folks, left and right, who run initiatives.

    Someone should look into the staffing of recent initiatives and see if the same names crop up again and again. Initiatives might be as much or more about the well being of a few folks pocketbooks as they are about the well being of the people of Washington State.

  11. 12

    proud leftist spews:

    Piper @ 10
    Lord, just when I was starting to think you were occasionally capable of independent thought, you post swill straight from the insurance industry’s press releases. The treble damages only kick in when a judge or jury finds that an insurance company has unreasonably delayed or denied paying a legitimate claim. Absent such a provision, the law provides no disincentive to act unreasonably. After all, if the only penalty for denying a claim is that a court might order a company to pay, why not roll the dice? Your blather about contingent fees is simply the usual disingenuous rot from the antifairness people who, at bottom, simply do not want the average person to be able to obtain a lawyer to go after insurance companies. Contingent fees level the playing field for average people. As for the claim that approving R-67 will increase premiums, no insurance costs will rise absent unreasonable claims practices. It’s hardly a given that R-67 will have any impact on premiums.

  12. 13

    OneMan spews:

    So a friend of mine is an insurance agent. He is, of course, against R-67 (note, it’s a referendum, not an initiative, in this case seeking to prevent a law that has already passed the legislature).

    He makes two points: one, that rates would go up as a result of this law, and two, that the overall satisfaction numbers with insurers in this state are very high and that the law is unnecessary.

    Regarding the first point, he may well be right although if the second point is true then the overall effect of this referendum should be minimal.

    As to the second, it may be true that insureds’ satisfaction levels are high overall. However, it is also true that some insurers in the bottom tier could behave very differently than those in the top tier (the company my friend represents has a very high rating). The problem with overall statistics is that they tend to hide the outliers.

    I have had personal experience of an insurance company dragging their feet; in this case for something I could live without (a ruined boat motor) but it took six months of calling the adjuster at least once a week to get them to pay up. If it was my car or my health at stake, it would have been much more than an inconvenience and the insurer would deserve punishment in my opinion.

    I don’t honestly know how I’ll vote on this measure, yet. I’m still researching it. I do know that the anti-67 ads just tick me off, they’re so manipulative.

    Another data point…

    -OM

  13. 14

    Proud To Be An Ass spews:

    Piper stubs toe: “….since insurance companies, businesses that they are, will settle and simply pass the cost along to consumers.”

    Well besides the fact that your whole point is fantabulously incorrect, the little bit of economics you offer is absurd. No economist worth his salt would agree with your statement above. Businesses cannot simply “pass the costs” on to consumers unless you consider other variables such as profit margins, substitutions, marginal costs, demand and supply elasticities, etc., etc.

    R-67 basically acts to correct a market failure…the ability of suppliers to evade their commitments without punishment. In most industries, a firm that regularly failed to meet commitments is driven from the market place. In the insurance game, shareholders’ incentives are exactly opposite. Denying or delaying claims helps the bottom line. (Conversely, you could make lowball offers with the hook of immediate payment. Ask any auto or home insurance adjustor). Now getting along without a house or a car may be really difficult, but it can be done. There are alternatives.

    It’s pretty hard to “make do” with no health.

  14. 15

    Piper Scott spews:

    Here’s what I’m willing to do…

    If all of you will GUARANTEE to me that R-67 won’t result in trial lawyers getting bigger fees, that, instead, every penny of the treble damages will innure to the benefit of the aggrieved plaintiff, then you might be able to persuade me to change my mind.

    But as little as I like insurance companies as a class, I like the tort bar even less. Especially since I’ve spent enough time around PI attorneys when they brag about ratcheting up damages in order to get bigger fees or set damage-awared records or things like that.

    Do any of you think one of society’s ills is not enough litigation?

    Just exactly who will end up paying for these treble damage awards?

    The Piper

  15. 16

    Proud To Be An Ass spews:

    @12 above. Despite the good grammer, easy style, and lack of foul language or abuse, Piper’s stuff is always straight out of the wingnuttiae handbook, and he hews to the far right line without exception. But I’ve gotta’ give it to the guy, he’s pretty good, and has all the lingo down pat.

    If you’ve ever found where he strayed from the standard wingnut party line, I’d be curious to see it.

    Think of him as troll elevator music. Light, harmless, and empty.

  16. 17

    proud leftist spews:

    Piper
    So, you would prefer to let insurance companies screw their insureds if the alternative involved trial lawyers making a few more bucks? That’s a real pro-consumer position. In a capitalist, market-driven economy, your chastising trial lawyers for liking to make money is rather curious. Do you chastise insurance companies for liking to make money? Doctors? Small business owners? You seem to have a double standard. Of course, as a Republican, you likely have multiple standards, many of them conflicting.

  17. 19

    YLB spews:

    when a judge or jury finds that an insurance company has unreasonably delayed or denied paying a legitimate claim.

    Ironically, this is just about ALWAYS the case these days with insurance companies. So this initiative hits those bottom dwellers right where it hurts.

  18. 21

    My Left Foot spews:

    Open thought:

    So the Larry Craig saga rages on. It is fraught with lies, steamy sex in public restrooms and a man so confused that his identity is unknown to his family or even, I am afraid, himself. It is so sad.

    Just a thought.

  19. 22

    proud leftist spews:

    Piper
    The insurance industry is likely to set a record for spending on an initiative/referendum campaign here in Washington. I believe the anti-67 group has already raised about $9 million. Given their pro-insured bias, I’m sure that the insurers who have contributed that sum will not seek to recover their contributions through increased premiums. By the way, the pro-67 group has a pittance in comparison. That is why we have not seen a pro-67 ad until today. So, who’s got more power, the insurance industry or the trial bar?

  20. 23

    Piper Scott spews:

    @22…PL…

    I’m sorry, but you’ll have to do better than that to get me to feel sorry for the poor, impoverished, put-upon tort bar.

    @17…PL…

    Insurance companies can be recalcitrant…no argument from me. But they provide a service for a fee per a contract.

    Trial attorneys do what? Profit on the misery of others. They neither make a product nor provide a necessary service.

    Bottom, bottom, bottom line? R-67 won’t provide anyone the relief you think it will. What it will do is line the pockets of some lawyers.

    Query…Why not a treble damage law for legal malpractice? Or severe monetary penalties for every lawyer who misses a deadline or is inattentive to client affairs (any current candidate for public office come to mind??? Hmmmm????) or fails to return phone calls or otherwise provides crappy service?

    Bet the trial bar would howl over such an infringement upon their professional “rights.”

    The Piper

  21. 24

    Mark1 spews:

    @6 YLB,

    As usual, you’re so sure that you’re right and anyone who dares to disagree with you is wrong. You are the very definition of liberal bias. Look in the mirror once in awhile, that is if you can see over the glow of that imaginary halo. BTW, does “YLB” maybe stand for “your liberal bullshit”?

  22. 26

    proud leftist spews:

    “Trial attorneys do what? Profit on the misery of others. They neither make a product nor provide a necessary service.” Piper @ 23

    Cancer doctors do what? Profit on the misery of others. Insurance companies do what? Profit on the misery of others. Think before you post, my friend. Trial lawyers provide the most necessary of services–justice. I’m sure you’re laughing, but think about it. The Bill of Rights would be meaningless without trial lawyers seeking damages for the breach of them. When a family’s life is turned upside down because of injury leading to loss of job and medical bills, a trial lawyer seeking to hold a negligent party responsible looks like a freaking hero. With regard to your query about why not imposing treble damages for legal or medical negligence, I would suggest you think about the difference between negligence and willful misconduct. The difference is not one of nuance, so even a Republican mind should be able to see it.

  23. 27

    YLB spews:

    Mark1 – I’m glad you responded. You’re a hateful goon full of right wing bullshit yourself. You have a huge problem with women in office who don’t defer or kowtow to men when the chips are down. I and many others respect that, find it admirable.

    You HATE that. You are a sad, ugly excuse for a human being.

    I gave one good example of how the traditional media has caved into the right wing. There are many, many others. You come up with?

    Absolutely nothing. How typical!

  24. 28

    Mark1 spews:

    @26:

    Funny, I feel exactly the same way about you, on the opposite side. If you feel you actually come up with something of substance yourself, then you are obviously talking to your imaginary friend next to you in your own little delusional world. I sincerely hope you get help. And no, I don’t have a problem with a woman in office-it’s just the ones that are currently and Hillary are incompetent in their politics, and one stole an election. Sounds like you’re one of those guys who has lost any shred of masculinity and self esteem. Liberal bias media? Hhhhmmmm, let’s see, how about that Jena “6” nonsense for one……..moveon.org for two…..should I go on?

  25. 29

    Piper Scott spews:

    @25…PL…

    Justice??? Trial lawyers don’t provide any such thing! Trial lawyers are ethically obligated to provide zealous representation. Period.

    Justice? What’s that? A code word for fat fees?

    Insurance companies don’t profit from the misery of anyone. They bet you won’t have misery, while you bet you will. When there is misery, they lose.

    Cancer doctors provide restorative healing services.

    Trial lawyers have nothing to do with the Bill of Rights. Heck, if it was up to trial lawyers, they’d eviscerate the Second Amendment with damage suits against gun manufacturers.

    BTW…most Constitutional litigation isn’t over large damage awards, it’s over rights. That’s why the tort bar isn’t seen anywhere near that kind of litigation…no contingent fees.

    Here’s a clue…go to the ER and ask the docs there or to a surgeon or gass-passer and ask them about the effect of trial lawyers on their malpractice insurance, hence the price we all pay for health care.

    Now, that R-67 doesn’t apply to health care claims, but it does to malpractice issues, so if you think your medical bills are high now…you ain’t seen nuttin’ yet!

    I still haven’t heard from anyone a case in favor if R-67 based that’s so compelling as to call for a change in current law. What’s wrong with the statutes we have now? Common law and statutory contractual remedies? Consumer protection?

    Why another law? That serves primarily to enrich the already rich? C’mon, my liberal friends, where’s your sense of class “justice?”

    The Piper

  26. 31

    Proud To Be An Ass spews:

    Justice??? Trial lawyers don’t provide any such thing! Trial lawyers are ethically obligated to provide zealous representation. Period.

    An obligation of all attorneys. So you bring nothing.

    Justice? What’s that? A code word for fat fees?

    You don’t know what justice is…and you want to discuss THIS issue? More nothing.

    Insurance companies don’t profit from the misery of anyone. They bet you won’t have misery, while you bet you will. When there is misery, they lose.

    Unless, of course, they don’t have to pay for the misery. Then they don’t lose. Case in point: The wrangling over the insurance payout re the World Trade Center….LOTS AND LOTS OF ATTORNEYS!!!! Again, you blather. Nothing.

    Cancer doctors provide restorative healing services.

    And they charge for it. Handsomely, I might add. But so what? More nothing. Anybody see a pattern here?

    Trial lawyers have nothing to do with the Bill of Rights. Heck, if it was up to trial lawyers, they’d eviscerate the Second Amendment with damage suits against gun manufacturers.

    Red herring. A classic, I might add. Gosh, then those poor trail lawyers would have to find something else to evicerate. Off point. No substantiation. Not even good propaganda. You can do better, Piper.

    BTW…most Constitutional litigation isn’t over large damage awards, it’s over rights.

    Well, doh! Maybe bring some numbers. Really, it’s not beneath you.

    That’s why the tort bar isn’t seen anywhere near that kind of litigation…no contingent fees.

    And this has exactly what to do with just about anything?

    Here’s a clue…go to the ER and ask the docs there or to a surgeon or gass-passer and ask them about the effect of trial lawyers on their malpractice insurance, hence the price we all pay for health care.

    No thanks. I’d rather ask somebody who has actually closely studied the numbers. Your claim is patently false. Empty elevator troll music.

    Now, that R-67 doesn’t apply to health care claims, but it does to malpractice issues, so if you think your medical bills are high now…you ain’t seen nuttin’ yet!

    No evidence. Scaremongering. And really, verging on nonsensical.

    I still haven’t heard from anyone a case in favor if R-67 based that’s so compelling as to call for a change in current law. What’s wrong with the statutes we have now? Common law and statutory contractual remedies? Consumer protection?

    Now where have we heard this line of reasoning before? Let me count the ways: Race relations, unions, regulation of interstate commerce, the environment, workplace health and safety…why, the list is well neigh endless. More empty suit stuff, Piper. Pure unadulterated rhetorical piffle.

    Why another law? That serves primarily to enrich the already rich? C’mon, my liberal friends, where’s your sense of class “justice?”

    Then I am glad you have endorsed single payer health care. No health insurance companies, no malpractice, no attorneys. Why, we’d bust these guys, Piper! Can I count you in?

  27. 32

    YLB spews:

    Sounds like you’re one of those guys who has lost any shred of masculinity and self esteem.

    LMAO!!! When a moron like you makes a claim like that – well, it’s just like holding up a mirror to your own miserable self for everyone to see.

    That’s called projection – fool!

    Christine Gregoire defeated your guy – legally! And a Republican Judge in a Republican county concurred and dismissed your side’s case WITH PREJUDICE!

    Your side had nothing!

    What’s most laughable is that you actually believe your crowd has a chance in 2008! Your party is full of incompetents, extremists, liars and hypocrites and until you’ve purged them like Dan Evans did to the Birchers, you don’t have a fart’s chance in a hurricane!

    Now I’m going to have a little more fun.

    Keep coming back Mark1. Keep hating. Keep on hating Christine Gregoire for not only defeating your guy but exposing him for the whiner, sore loser and out-of-the-mainstream extremist he is. Keep on doing it Mark1.

    We’d rather have you showing your ugly face here wasting your energy, spewing your hate so that everyone can see what your crowd is really all about – rather than oh doing something rational like helping to get out the vote so your guy will win.

    Go on Mark1 help us define you. You’ve been doing a bang up job right up to now.

  28. 33

    YLB spews:

    Despite the good grammer, easy style, and lack of foul language or abuse

    Yes Piper replays the right wing talking points in a breezy, fluid style. Yes, elevator music is an apt characterization.

  29. 34

    proud leftist spews:

    Piper @ 29: “Trial lawyers have nothing to do with the Bill of Rights.”

    Wow, pal, you are truly deluded, aren’t you? Who is enforcing the Bill of Rights, the Bush Administration? Why don’t you check out a statute, my man, if you know what statutes are. (I had thought your ability to use grammar and punctuation to produce a coherent thought distinguished you from other trolls. I was wrong.) 42 USC Section 1983. This statute was enacted just after the Civil War to permit a civil remedy to denial of civil rights. You will find that lawyers sue under this statute all the time pursuant to contingent fee agreements. Civil rights would not otherwise be enforced, as most people whose rights are denied could not possibly pay a lawyer by the hour. Of course, people like you think that would be a good thing. If only the government, insurance companies, and corporations could hire lawyers, you’d be in Nirvana. Piper, a mind is a terrible thing to waste.

  30. 36

    spews:

    Piper reasons FORWARD from conclusions that he likes and is comfortable with. He has never questioned whether what he believes is true or not. These are what he calls his “core beliefs” — things he just likes to believe. This is why The Piper is impervious to reason.

    He’s just a bonehead with a passable vocabulary. He uses the word ‘sadly’ altogether too much, sadly, and the phrase ‘ipso facto’ makes a few too many appearances as well.

    Piper, you failed to absorb the information presented in the article I recommended on Leo Strauss. You gave me your opinion, but cited no examples or illustrations to buttress your points.

    Very Lame .

    My piercing and cogent reply to your maunderings is on the thread.

    My arguments prevail. And don’t think for a minute that your stuff is lost in that thread, as the name Leo Strauss is mentioned frequently and it will show up on many students web searches.

    You are beaten.

  31. 37

    proud leftist spews:

    YLB
    You’re right. Piper is just elevator music for Limbaughians. Sad, so sad. I thought we had actually found a righty capable of engaging in reasoned dialogue.

  32. 38

    Dan Rather spews:

    Anyone who says the MSM is not biased toward liberals is either:

    A) A liberal
    B) Ignorant soccer mom who catches snipets between watching
    Oprah and the next top model
    C) Complete Moron.

    There is no debate for honest people.

  33. 40

    My Left Foot spews:

    Dear Dan @ 38

    Honest people (not you) are not afraid of debate (again, not you).

    The only complete moron here is you. You are also the only one here who does not realize that.

  34. 42

    Dan Rather spews:

    #38 — You are correct. You are just a pathetic victim of the powerful and manly Liberal Press.

    No not exactly. You can only run with a bold face lie so long. hehehe But it doesn’t stop you useful idiot from defending me. hahahaha

  35. 43

    spews:

    @29
    I can’t believe I actually have to provide a definition of the word justice to someone here, but here it is:

    The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law.

    Many, many trial lawyers are hired by people to attain justice in times when they’ve been treated unfairly, unethically, or unlawfully.

    Yes, some trial lawyers have argued cases that I don’t agree with and some have acted unethically. But tarring all trial lawyers because of that is no different than deriding all computer programmers because of hackers, deriding all bankers because of embezzlers, or deriding all police officers because of the corrupt ones.

  36. 44

    Dan Rather spews:

    Justice? What’s that? A code word for fat fees?

    You don’t know what justice is…and you want to discuss THIS issue? More nothing.

    Wow, way to go. You sure told him. hehehehe My dead grandma could do better than this. Well since she is dead she is probably a liberal so maybe not. hahahaha

  37. 45

    Puddybud spews:

    YLB@3 – The Clueless One: WTF?

    Frank Rich, Maureen Dowd, Paul Krugman, Howie Kurtz, George Steponallofus, All of CNN, chief idiot Keith Olbermann, etc.

    Need I say more?

    Nuff Said!

  38. 46

    Dan Rather spews:

    Yes, some trial lawyers have argued cases that I don’t agree with and some have acted unethically. But tarring all trial lawyers because of that is no different than deriding all computer programmers because of hackers, deriding all bankers because of embezzlers, or deriding all police officers because of the corrupt ones.

    Wrong analogy. Istead of computer programers or police officers you need to use use used car salesman and pornographers. Man you lefties are out of whack. Geeesh.

  39. 47

    Dan Rather spews:

    Frank Rich, Maureen Dowd, Paul Krugman, Howie Kurtz, George Steponallofus, All of CNN, chief idiot Keith Olbermann, etc.

    You forgot the staff at 60 minutes, Newsweek (flush the Quran down a toilet),NY Times, LA times ect ect ect.

  40. 48

    spews:

    @46
    Wrong analogy. Istead of computer programers or police officers you need to use use used car salesman and pornographers. Man you lefties are out of whack. Geeesh.

    Was this supposed to make sense, or are you trying to justify using handicapped parking spots?

  41. 49

    michael spews:

    @45

    Yeah, that Lou Dobbs he’s quite the liberal. And Glenn Beck? He’s a liberal? And I’ve noticed a few Ex-Cnn’ers have shown up on Fox. Bill Hemmer being the latest

    “Before he joined the Fox News Channel, Hemmer spent ten years at CNN hosting a number of programs”

  42. 50

    Puddybud spews:

    Proud Leftist@17: We know lawyers are for the Donk side of the aisle. Every time tort reform is tried your friends kill it. I guess your take is insurance is the right side of the aisle.

  43. 51

    Puddybud spews:

    Did you guys know 85% of the US population want English as our primary government language? Read the polls!!!

  44. 52

    michael spews:

    @48

    People that use handicap parking realize that government is a good and helpful thing. They probably vote for Democrats.

  45. 53

    michael spews:

    @51

    This is America, the land of the free, and people should be free to speak what ever the fuck language they want.

  46. 55

    Dan Rather spews:

    @46
    Wrong analogy. Istead of computer programers or police officers you need to use use used car salesman and pornographers. Man you lefties are out of whack. Geeesh.

    Was this supposed to make sense, or are you trying to justify using handicapped parking spots?

    No Lee. It just your sense of relativism is a little off. Here let rephrase with a similar profession to trial lawyers:

    Yes, some snake oil salesman have sold worthless remedies that I don’t agree with and some have acted unethically. But tarring all snake oil salesman because of that is no different than deriding all computer programmers because of hackers, deriding all bankers because of embezzlers, or deriding all police officers because of the corrupt ones.

    Get my point there Lee? Come on, it is not that hard.

  47. 56

    spews:

    Nobody can vote away or “emergency declare” away your constitutional rights.

    They are non-negotiable rights. If some in power want to declare that 9/11 changed everything, then they ought to include themselves in ‘everything’.

  48. 59

    proud leftist spews:

    “Proud Leftist@17: We know lawyers are for the Donk side of the aisle. Every time tort reform is tried your friends kill it. I guess your take is insurance is the right side of the aisle.” Puddy @ 50

    Puddy Buddy,
    I don’t speak Wingnuttia. Could you refer me to an interpreter?

  49. 60

    YLB spews:

    Puddystupid: those are all opinion people. Right wingers dominate punditry by the way: Krauthammer, Brooks, Coulter, Steyn, Will, Kristol, Novak, Goldberg and a host of others.

  50. 62

    Puddybud spews:

    No Michael I didn’t screw the pooch. CNN wasn’t called the Clinton News Network for no reason.

  51. 63

    Dan Rather spews:

    Nobody can vote away or “emergency declare” away your constitutional rights.

    Hear hear. Well unless you live in Washington state and the legistlators declare an emergency spending bill on something that guvmint should be providing for anyway.

  52. 64

    YLB spews:

    Yeah, CNN has that fucking idiot Glen Beck – what a waste of breathable air and potable water.

    PStupid – you won’t find much respect for CNN from me. They’ve been too whipped by the Rovian attack dogs.

  53. 65

    michael spews:

    @62

    An awful lot of CNN Liberals seem to be showing up on conservative Fox.

    So, you really think Lou Dobbs and Glenn Beck are liberals? You said EVERY ONE at CNN was a liberal.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/.....4683.story

    Jeff Flock, who spent 24 years at CNN, including 19 years as its Chicago bureau chief, is moving to Fox Business Network.

    Flock, who left CNN in 2004, will be based in Chicago for FBN, which is scheduled to launch next month. Most recently, he was managing editor and anchor Hurricane Now LLC, a Web site specializing in U.S. hurricane coverage.

  54. 66

    spews:

    #55 — And don’t forget the peace of mind that the customers’ of the snake oil salesman received. That is worth more than gold.

    Substitute ‘Right wing religeous nut’ for ‘snake oil salesman’.

    See MY point?

  55. 68

    spews:

    Your right to sue a corporation is one of those inalienable rights. If corporations hold most of the money and power, it is just as much a tyrranny as any ‘guvmint’.

    You are so thick-witted. We have to fight to protect the rights you are too fucking dumb to see that you are losing.

    No. Please. Don’t thank us. The p;easure is all ours.

  56. 69

    Dan Rather spews:

    66

    You are right, I was too hard on snake oil salesman. At least they only effect the people who directly buy from them.

  57. 71

    Puddybud spews:

    YLB – The Clueless One: What? Dowd and Rich are definitely counted as “pundits”.

    So Juan Williams, Mara Liasson, Alan Colmes, James Carville, Paul Begala, Kos, Al Gore, Jack Cafferty don’t count either.

  58. 72

    proud leftist spews:

    Dan Rather
    You would feel at home in China or Cuba, neither of which has many lawyers. Indeed, those countries have proportionately zippo lawyers compared to our country. Viet Nam had almost none, too. Where the rule of law doesn’t matter, lawyers aren’t. So, move, my friend, none of us will miss you.

  59. 73

    michael spews:

    Puddy,

    So, you don’t seem to be standing up for your statement that everyone at CNN is a liberal any more…

    Maybe that’s because not all of them are, like Lou Dobbs and Glenn Beck?

  60. 74

    YLB spews:

    71 – Puddyidiot – I’m not following you. Face it. The so-called “liberal” media cheerleaded for Bush’s stupid war.

    The same war that’s going to cost us over a TRILLION DOLLARS if not way more!

    The same war sold on stupid right wing bullshit that you lap up like a rabid dog.

  61. 75

    Dan Rather spews:

    Dan Rather
    You would feel at home in China or Cuba, neither of which has many lawyers.

    Those are your countries. I dont want universal healthcare, banning of guns, abortion on demand ect. You move. It was your ilk who was threatening to move if Bush won (which he did overwhelmingly) in 2004. Of course all you lefties are liars. Go figure.

  62. 76

    YLB spews:

    71 – As for you list.

    Williams – he’s all right, just barely
    Liasson – She’s a registered Republican!
    Colmes – a punching bag for Hannity. I have no respect for him.
    Carville – a DLCer, I have little regard for him as well as his choice for a wife.
    Kos – he’s cool, former Republican by the way. I bet you didn’t know that.
    Gore – WTF? He’s a guest not a pundit.
    Cafferty – Don’t know much about him but what little I’ve seen I’ve liked.

  63. 77

    spews:

    Poooor widdow right wing corporate elitists. Those baaaaad trial lawyers. Baaaaad! Corporations should be able to screw anyone, and everyone without ever paying a dime in damages right?

    Wait till you are sick, and the insurance company denies paying for the treatments that will save your life.

    Come back and tell us how your fight to get the medicine, and treatment you think you were paying for (or your employer) all those years. Tell us how you are going to pay the medical bills, or better yet live, when they auction off your house at the King County Courthouse.

    Right winger small government lemmings think Corporations should just run our lives right? Who needs government when a company can decide if you live or die because of their bottom line. Some truly sick minds.

    All Facts Support My Positions

    I guess that makes me a liberal right?

    I only know of one thing Republicons are good at.

    Creating corpses.

    Now watch Bush veto SCHIP. Tens of millions of children get to watch their parents possibly go bankrupt if they ever get sick, so the top 1% can keep their tax cuts!!!!!

    There is nothing sicker than a conservative mind.

  64. 78

    My Left Foot spews:

    Perhaps I am all wet here, but blaming the media for being liberal and claiming it is ruining minds and America is nuts.

    What Pudwhacker and Dan Rathernot are really saying is that they don’t trust Americans to make up their own minds, to be able to think for themselves. They fear (or hope that) we are all mindless lemmings. It works for a time to wit GWB’s invocation of terrorism and attack at every available opportunity. Fear ruled. But Americans wised up. The trick was realized.

    These two ignorant asses want to continue their party’s assault on our liberty and sensibility. They want to win, not do what is best for the majority. They are blind in their absolute devotion to following the lead sheep right over the edge.

    I say good luck and good riddance!

  65. 79

    spews:

    Oh by the way, the wingnuts were talking about the “liberal bias” in the press.

    What a laugh. Another right wing fantasy.

    Corporations own the MSM, and they are by no means liberal.

    How many reporters knew who leaked Valerie Plame’s identity to the press, and kept their mouths shut, and their pens shelved, until after the election.

    Their silence helped Bush.

    Traitors. Slime. Maybe they were afraid of what the Bush Crime Machine would do to them if they did their jobs, telling the American People which members of the White House committed what amounts to treason, destroying Brewster Jennings’ ability to track WMD’s.

    The Bush Gang makes the mafia look like Boy Scouts.

  66. 80

    spews:

    Republicons are a disease rotting our democracy.

    Good news though. Their time is up.

    Anyone supporting Republicons these days would remind me of Germans supporting Hitler after the concentration camps were discovered.

    I hope they pass new legislation making the triple damages retroactive.

    How about this. If their refusal of treatment hurt someone, criminal charges should be filed, and the person who denied the claim, at every level should be put behind bars. Their assets should be transferred to the people who’s family member died from their denial of treatments.

    Sound fair?

  67. 81

    Dan Rather spews:

    The only reason the MSM has conservatives on is to stay afloat financially. No one want to listen to liberal drivel in the public schools,media or in public places. Why do you think PBS is such a bastion of liberalism. It is because liberalism cant make it out in the real world. The only way the left gets their message out is through elitists in the media and the backs of taxpayers.

  68. 82

    spews:

    Sorry for posting off topic, but I just heard about the sickest thing I ever heard. Rush Limpdik talking about the phony soldiers that want us to leave Iraq.

    By the way Rush, a recent poll showed 75% of the soldiers serving in Iraq must be phony soldiers, because they think we should leave, and 25% say we should leave immediately.

    Sure is a good thing Limpdik Limpbarf didn’t have to go to Vietnam. He probably stuck a seed up his ass to get his syst, just like Ted Nugent crapped in his pants for a month before going to see his draft board.

  69. 83

    My Left Foot spews:

    Hey Dumb Dan:

    The public schools at the University level are rife with liberals. Ever wonder why social movements and protests are germinated at the Universities? Probably not, conservatives don’t possess the ability to think and reason.

  70. 87

    michael spews:

    Puddy seems to have left the building. He’s probably crying his eyes out and sniffing his mommies dirty undies. Republicans are such pervs.

  71. 91

    My Left Foot spews:

    Michael at 88:

    I know that. It was a humorous aside. FSMP was fine in his comment. Ergo only a conservative could possibly post off topic in an open thread.

  72. 93

    Dan Rather spews:

    Hey Dumb Dan:

    The public schools at the University level are rife with liberals.

    Yeah in liberal arts,journalism and womens studies. Not in hard science, math, business and engineering. You know the degrees that actually mean something.

  73. 96

    My Left Foot spews:

    How is Bill O’Liely coming along with getting his foot out of his mouth concerning Black owned and operated restaurants.

    Pudwhacker, as a Black man in today’s society, how do you feel about the conservative view of blacks in America as expressed by Bill O.?

  74. 99

    michael spews:

    Well good night all. Contrary to what the folks on the right like to blather on about, we on the left do have jobs we have to get up and go to in the morning.

  75. 101

    jsa on commercial drive spews:

    (I’m carrying this over from another thread)

    Pud writes:

    JSA: I wouldn’t give Khatami the time of day either. There is one thing to talk to them. Their rhetoric is on the record from their internal speeches.

    Pud,

    I’m sorry. You’re losing me.

    All Iranian leaders are bad. Since the people who really hold the power are a small group of hardcore Islamic clerics, this isn’t very surprising.

    I am sure Ahmadinejad has much more material in his internal speeches that I haven’t browsed yet. I’m sure David Duke does as well. I know enough about what both of them are going on about that I don’t feel I need to read further.

    You seem to be implying that the Great Baby-Eating Hollywood Liberal Media Conspiracy underestimates what horrible people the Iranian leadership are. I don’t buy this.

    Now, a better question is, what is your recourse? We have tried keeping the country next door in a box for years and years hoping that it would make the bad guy who runs it slink away quietly. It didn’t work.

    We then sent in troops to take said guy out. This has only been successful in the sense that he is gone. The rest has been a mess.

    No matter how you feel about whether Iraq was the right thing to do, or whether it’s going well now, I can’t imagine anyone is excited about a repeat performance. If nothing else, we simply don’t have the troops or the financial resources to go to another country.

    So, you have a political spectrum in Iran which is awful from one end to the other. You will probably have limited success with sanctions (after all, look how they got rid of Castro!), and you can’t seriously be considering a broad military attack.

    So what are you gonna do?

  76. 103

    spews:

    @55
    No Lee. It just your sense of relativism is a little off. Here let rephrase with a similar profession to trial lawyers:

    Yes, some snake oil salesman have sold worthless remedies that I don’t agree with and some have acted unethically. But tarring all snake oil salesman because of that is no different than deriding all computer programmers because of hackers, deriding all bankers because of embezzlers, or deriding all police officers because of the corrupt ones.

    Get my point there Lee? Come on, it is not that hard.

    I do get your point. You’re saying that all trial lawyers are snake oil salemen. And you’re still wrong.

  77. 104

    Mick spews:

    @102 #100 is an alternet link to a photo essay about the impact this war is having on the families of those killed in Iraq. Hardly a Republican pro-war piece. But, maybe you are being sarcastic. Or maybe this is why the anti-war movement is having so much trouble getting traction-liberals like you are dumbasses!

  78. 105

    spews:

    Just something from my blog.

    The sissy w’s from KSFO radio

    Worthless, Wimps, Wussys, Weasels, Warmongers(as long as someone else is doing the fighting).
    This SallyBoy and his (should be) co-defendents shows how un-American some blabbering mouths can be.
    I am not a big Ron Paul supporter, or even a small one, but SallyBoy says that Dr Paul and all of his followers should be killed. Good thing SallyBoy represents the extremeist,hate mongering, right or he would be in
    big do-do.
    My link takes you to http://www.spockosbrain.com/, where he provides links to the story.
    It is the Sept.25 post.

    Remember one very important thing here folks.
    These people are on the air at the behest of ABC/Disney.
    Sorry for calling them people.

  79. 106

    Daddy Love spews:

    Funny how with all this conversation about trial lawyers, no one talks about the injured being denied just compensation for their injuries, compensation for which they paid in advance in the form of insurance premiums. Trial lawyers are just technicians helping them navigate the system we have made into a minefield for amateurs, and are also counters to the expensive “trial lawyers” the insurance companies field.

    The injured. That’s who 67 is about. Try not to forget them.

  80. 107

    Daddy Love spews:

    104 Mick

    Ya see, Mick, I don’t think he was talking to you. He saw the piece you linked to, got pissed off (as he should), then came back here and blasted the venal and immoral Republicans who keep this war going and kids dying, without their noble sacrifices accomplishing a damn thing, for their own partisan political purposes. Does this help you get a little closer?

  81. 108

    Piper Scott spews:

    @106…DL…

    Then maybe the trial lawyers will refuse any increased fees that come as a result of R-67, letting them go, instead, into the pockets of injured plaintiffs. It’s not like there’s any additional work involved!

    But, then again, maybe Santa Claus will be good to you this year…

    Both propositions are equally plausible.

    The Piper

  82. 109

    Tom Foss spews:

    For some of our readers and viewers of the ad, it might help to read the referendum. I did, and I talked to the sponsor at length. I am not an attorney, either, but I saw one of these hearings and followed this issue. BTW, this was put on the ballot by record shattering insurance expenditures, after the legislature passed, and the Governor signed SB 5726. The legislature saw a problem, acted to fix it, and now, because they don’t want to forced to treat us fairly, insurers are shattering spending records to keep it from becoming law.

    All treble damages, if ever awarded by a court, DO go to the consumer, and costs and attorney fees are paid separately. The court must find that the insurer wasn’t just wrong, but acted with NO reasonable basis for their position at all. In other words, they scr—- you. The judge determines whether additional damages are warranted, and also detrmines the reasonable fees. The reason the insurer pays the fees, too, is that otherwise, an insurance consumer can never ever get their real benefits because they have to sue their own insurance company just to get the benefits they are owed, and pay fees out of that amount. Thats not fair.Under current law, since the only damages allowed are by contract, ie. what they owe you today, there is not much incentive for insurers to treat us fairly. That is how the bill would work.

    This is the most simple fairness. Insurance consumers have a heavy duty in WA to be honest, insurers can fiorce us to testify unedr oath, and even the slightest mistake in listing damaged items can void all insurance coverage.Also,our and anti fraud laws make consumers felons, but not insurers, for committing any modestly dishonest act. In fact, the insurers fought tooth and nail to defeat a bill that would have only said the same laws on fraud that apply to all us applies to them, too.

    Don’t be fooled. This has nothing to do with frivolous claims, it has to do with insurers taking money out of our pockets in our time of need. Insurance Commish Kreidler said that this measure will not affect any insurer’s rates unless they are committing serial acts of bad faith. We need this law. -Tom

  83. 110

    Puddybud spews:

    JSA: I’ll answer you first. 50 journalists were invited to the luncheon. None should have went. Period.

  84. 113

    Puddybud spews:

    Carl: where is YOUR outrage over Media Matters and them discussing the “happy negro” attack on NPRs Juan Williams?

    Silence is golden.

  85. 115

    Puddybud spews:

    chadt: I write in ebonics. Jesse Jackson approved that language.

    Tough it out butthead!

  86. 116

    Puddybud spews:

    Since no one will I pray for Tom Rider’s wife who was found yesterday after 8 days in a ditch with critical life-threatening injuries. How about you Moonbat!s?

  87. 118

    chadt spews:

    Puddy: If you think that anybody here believes that you care about some poor woman in a ditch, or that you would ever pray for anything that doesn’t benefit you personally, or that anybody thinks that your post was anything except self-serving bullshit, you’re even more out of touch than I thought.

    Stick THAT up your ponderous ass, along with your sigmas and thrones.