The Official Obama Scorecard Thread

[CaneBrain 95]

good luck cain...defend lawyers...LOL you will have a lot luck with that. One of the few things that most democrats and most rebuplicans can agree on is lawyers are one of the lowest life forms...blast away.

And it's a wildly uninformed opinion based on old jokes, lack of understanding, and the misconception that most lawyers are plaintiffs attorneys. Lots of Dems and Republicans have those qualities in common too (being uninformed and being unable to understand things).Unlike pandering politicians and media hacks, I am not afraid to defend an unpopular position especially when I am right. Way to respond to those points....gotta love having intelligent debate. "People hate lawyers so we should do tort reform that punishes patients more than lawyers!" That will show those lawyers! Great point. Thanks for contributing.

[85suited 0]

If you want to cap lawyers fees at a certain percentage, thats fine. But I do not believe in doing away with damages for pain and suffering. The burden of proof on someone suing a doctor is already much higher than for almost all other kinds of torts.Put caps on what lawyers can get.....not what victims get. We dont limit pain and suffering damages for other torts, why should we give doctors a free pass?I like the idea of eliminating joint and several liability. Many states have already done so.Shortening statute of limitation is another terrible idea. Sometimes you just do not know how badly a doctor screwed up until years later.That excerpt has some good ideas and some ideas that are terribly unfair to victims of malpractice.

cane thanks for reading and providing a lawyers pov...

[CaneBrain 95]

cane thanks for reading and providing a lawyers pov...

no problem.just keep in mind that the vast majority of lawyers harbor some resentment to personal injury lawyers because most of the negative stereotypes come from them. If they want to do tort reform by cutting back on what lawyers can make.....thats an idea I can get behind. But telling victims of med-mal that their pain and suffering does not matter (especially since non-economic damages are very routine these days) is not something I can get behind. Some for the SoL stuff.Modifying joint and several liability statutes sounds very fair. Although, I am having trouble thinking of a hypothetical where a medical malpractice claim would involve multiple defendants guilty of negligence (where some of those defendants are not hospital employees). That seems like an odd chain of events.

[Balloon guy 158]

Whatever Cane, just remember:In the revolution, the first group lined up on the wall will be the lawyers.And not because we are tired of the jokes...And the first ones on the wall should be the class action lawsuits lawyers firms, followed by personal injury lawyers who charge upwards of 45% plus fees.

[Jeepster80125 0]

no problem.just keep in mind that the vast majority of lawyers harbor some resentment to personal injury lawyers because most of the negative stereotypes come from them. If they want to do tort reform by cutting back on what lawyers can make.....thats an idea I can get behind. But telling victims of med-mal that their pain and suffering does not matter (especially since non-economic damages are very routine these days) is not something I can get behind. Some for the SoL stuff.Modifying joint and several liability statutes sounds very fair. Although, I am having trouble thinking of a hypothetical where a medical malpractice claim would involve multiple defendants guilty of negligence (where some of those defendants are not hospital employees). That seems like an odd chain of events.

I haven't read anything main stream that supports your views in your industry. It seems like your point of view is a tiny portion of the rest of your industry. I don't see any lawyers that are pro-tort-reform, any sort of reform. Have you (non-anecdotal)?editI am not disagreeing with you, just noting that you seem to be in the minority.

[Jeepster80125 0]

-1Shhhhh, Don't Tell Anyone — The Patriot Act Was Reauthorized After a lot of huffing and puffing, about the need to add more civil liberties protections to a law already teeming with them, the Democrat-controlled Senate quietly voted to extend the three Patriot Act provisions that would have expired without reauthorization. Although beating back Patriot and its sensible national security provisions has been a rallying cry for the Left, Senate Democrats agreed to a clean reauthorization on a voice-vote. The New York Times managed just a paragraph, culled from the AP wire, to report the extension. Why so quiet? There are a couple of reasons, I suspect, and Michelle Malkin — ever on the case — gives us both of them.First, as Rep.Pete King (R-NY) points out, the Patriot Act surveillance measures were critical to the FBI's ability to break the case against Najibullah Zazi, who wanted to mark the eighth anniversary of 9/11 by bombing New York City. As I noted in a column earlier this week, the Obama administration is dubiously using the Zazi case as a testament to the effectiveness of the civilian justice system in countering "violent extremism" (wouldn't want to use the I-word or the T-word). So it's bad timing to be dumping on Patriot.Second, Michelle adds, is the leadership of the anti-Patriot movement: CAIR. Who wouldn't want to be associated on a terrori "violent extremism "issue with a Muslim Brotherhood front, created for the purpose of promoting Hamas under the camouflage of "civil rights," that was recently alleged and shown to be a co-conspirator in a Hamas-financing case? Laughably, CAIR alleges that the Patriot Act is "undermining the integration" of the Muslim community in the U.S. The last thing CAIR is interested in is integrating the Muslim community. To the contrary, CAIR and other Muslim Brotherhood groups pursue a strategy of voluntary apartheid, the goal of which is to set up Islamic enclaves living under sharia law — the very strategy that is now dis-integrating Europe.In any event, kudos go not just to Pete King but to others, including Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), who worked diligently to get Patriot re-authorized. Sen. Sessions put out this statement last night:

The PATRIOT Act is a bipartisan bill that has helped save countless lives by equipping our national security community with the tools it needs to keep America safe. Recent terror attacks, such as those at Ft. Hood and on Christmas Day, demonstrate just how severe of a threat we are facing. There is simply no reason to weaken the PATRIOT Act—and every reason not to. This extension keeps PATRIOT’s security measures in place and demonstrates that there is a growing recognition that these crucial provisions must be preserved. We are now one step closer to what is needed: a full, long-term reauthorization.

Sen. Sessions, it should be noted, tried along with Senators Kit Bond (R-MO) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) to get Patriot reauthorized for four years. In the event, it was only reauthorized for one. Obviously, Democrats decided the timing was bad now, but they'll be back yet again next year to try to gut the contested provisions. That goes to show just how lunatic they are on security issues. To sensible people, there is absolutely nothing objectionable about the three Patriot powers in question. One is roving wiretaps, which criminal investigators have been using for years so that they don't need to get a new court order every time a suspect changes phones. Another is the business records provision — the Left sometimes calls it the "library records" provision even though library records are not mentioned in it — which simply allows national-security agents to collect information on terrorist suspects almost (but not quite) as easily as criminal investigators can. And finally, there is the "lone wolf" law (not part of the original Patriot Act but now tied to it), which allows agents to go after someone as to whom the evidence that he is a terrorist is strong but the evidence that he is tied to a known terrorist organization is weak. You may ask: Why should there be any time-limits on the operation of these laws? Wouldn't we always want our agents to be able to do these things — a year from now, four years from now, or a hundred years from now? Good questions.

[JoeyJoJo 18]

-1Shhhhh, Don't Tell Anyone — The Patriot Act Was Reauthorized

If it's a good thing, shouldn't that be a +1?

[Jeepster80125 0]

If it's a good thing, shouldn't that be a +1?

Some people would argue that the scope of the patriot act is a bit much.I don't have links, but I know obama has criticized this in the past, now that he's in the driver seat, it gets renewed with no scrutiny. That was more of my -1. I am actually for most parts of the patriot act. But that's another thread I think.

[Balloon guy 158]

It is very telling that Obama realizes that the things the left politicized for 7 years under Bush were not only necessary, but the only things we could have done if we were serious about protecting this nation.I would like to think that most people in this country would also recognize that Bush took a tough situation and did the best that could be done with it, once they are presented with the real issues, the real intelligence etc.Being more concerned with the safety of this country caused Bush not to tout the many ways that the intelligence communities have protected this country.Obama administration is trying to prosecuting them now. Including three Navy Seals who caught the guy behind the killing and hanging the burned naked bodies off the bridges at Fulljah. They are being charged with giving him a fat lip when they punched him. That's the left for you, taking heroes and making them criminals to appease their misguided understanding of the real world.It really goes to show that what that guy said a few years ago was right: "History will show Bush to be one of our better presidents."Let that sink in you tree hugging nut case leftist. History will show you to be sheep who followed a party bent on power regardless of what it did to this country.

[hblask 1]

It really goes to show that what that guy said a few years ago was right: "History will show Bush to be one of our better presidents."

<<<<<< Not holding breath for this one.

[Balloon guy 158]

<<<<<< Not holding breath for this one.

Who you trying to kid, you and I are too old to have any chance to be around to see these types of things.

[Jeepster80125 0]

+1.

Senator Dikembe Mutombo Blocks Record Amount Of LegislationWASHINGTON—Sen. Dikembe Mutombo (R-CO) showed that he is still one of the most dominant big men in Congress Thursday, blocking a record 16 bills in one legislative session.The 7-foot-2 senator, who broke the record previously held by Sen. Shawn Bradley (D-NJ), Rep. Arvydas Sabonis (D-OR), and current Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), batted away legislation left and right, sometimes swatting bills so hard that they were sent flying all the way back to committee.Mutombo punctuated his final block, a clean rejection of the Criminal Justice Reinvestment Act, with his signature finger wag."He stuffed the new jobs bill right back in Harry Reid's face," Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) told reporters. "And then when Reid tried to put the bill back up for consideration, Sen. Mutombo blocked it a second and then a third time. That's when I knew he had a chance at the record.""He just completely dominates the Senate floor," McCain added.His biggest rejection came 20 minutes into the first half of the session when 5-foot-10Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) had his Peace Corps Improvement and Expansion Act emphatically slapped away by a leaping Mutombo. Following the rejection, Mutombo glared at Dodd from the Senate podium and said, "Get that weak-ass legislation out of my house," in a yell that was reportedly heard in the top rows of the Senate Chamber."You don't mind giving up the blocks record to a talent like Mutombo," said Sen. McConnell, who is still considered the Republican floor leader. "Some say he's too centrist, and he may take that position at times, but the fact is he can get stuff struck down like nobody's business."Mutombo, who has been called a "force" by his Republican colleagues and is a key player in their legislative game plan, had a career-best nine blocks during the first half of Thursday's session. He easily rejected several appropriations bills, barely even getting off the Senate floor on two of them. For his 10th block of the day, he also got a piece of the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act."He's like a brick wall out there," a visibly tired and sweaty Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) told reporters. "Sen. Mutombo's arms are so long that if legislation is introduced anywhere in his vicinity, he's probably going to knock it away. There's no way we are going to get health care through with Mutombo out there.""You can try and alter your legislation or fake him out by attaching a rider to a bill, but in the end he's just too big," Kerry continued. "And fast. He's got surprisingly quick footwork."Dikembe Mutombo Mpolondo Mukamba Jean-Jacques Wamutombo started his political career as a city councilman in Denver, quickly gaining a reputation as an elected official focused on getting that stuff out of here. Campaigning on a platform of defense, defense, defense, the popular Mutombo was elected to the State Legislature in 2002 and then to the U.S. Senate in 2006. According to Senate sources, the rookie lawmaker came out of nowhere to stuff Ted Kennedy's Vaccine Access and Supply Act "so far down the late senator's throat" that he easily won the respect of his Republican colleagues."He reminds me of myself out there, just rejecting stuff left and right," said former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN), who retired in 2007. "Even when he gets called an obstructionist, or for goaltending, he's established psychological dominance and made his point: You don't come through his part of the floor."Though many Democratic senators have called Mutombo's legislative style extremely partisan, one-dimensional, and completely unfair, some of his colleagues across the aisle have praised Mutombo's willingness to assistthem in getting their legislation through Congress."The thing about Mutombo is that, for a big man, he can actually pass bills really well," Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) said in reference to their bipartisan work on the Trade Act of 2007 and the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008. "Because he's so tall, he sees the perimeter of the entire Senate floor and knows when a senator from the left or right might offer some weak-side help.""Reminds me of a young Bill Bradley," Baucus added.Such praise from Democratic lawmakers is rare, however, with many saying that Sen. Mutombo is directly responsible for the gridlock currently facing Washington."Sometimes I get the impression that he'll block something just because it's introduced by a Democrat or, quite frankly, just because he's taller than the rest of us," Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) told reporters. "Why else would he reject a resolution supporting stability in Sudan?"Specter went on to express concern for the future of his party, saying that the only hope for getting meaningful legislation passed through Congress is to make sure Rep. Greg Ostertag (D-UT) is elected to the Senate during November's midterm election.

[CaneBrain 95]

Whatever Cane, just remember:In the revolution, the first group lined up on the wall will be the lawyers.And not because we are tired of the jokes...And the first ones on the wall should be the class action lawsuits lawyers firms, followed by personal injury lawyers who charge upwards of 45% plus fees.

Under the model code of professional responsibility, this would be cause for censure or disbarment. 45% is not allowed under almost any circumstances.

[brvheart 1,752]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ot...roval-1044.html

[85suited 0]

I am shocked that no one is talking about the renewal of the patriotic act....

[akoff 0]

I am shocked that no one is talking about the renewal of the patriotic act....

it was only bad when the Bush crew thought it was important. Now that Barak sees the need it is ok...love democrats.

[85suited 0]

Just like when Biden claimed success in Iraq

[hblask 1]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100305/ap_on_...dget_deficits_3WASHINGTON – A new congressional report released Friday says the United States' long-term fiscal woes are even worse than predicted by President Barack Obama's grim budget submission last month. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicts that Obama's budget plans would generate deficits over the upcoming decade that would total $9.8 trillion. That's $1.2 trillion more than predicted by the administration. The agency says its future-year predictions of tax revenues are more pessimistic than the administration's. That's because CBO projects slightly slower economic growth than the White House. The deficit picture has turned alarmingly worse since the recession that started at the end of 2007, never dipping below 4 percent of the size of the economy over the next decade. Economists say that deficits of that size are unsustainable and could put upward pressure on interest rates, crowd out private investment in the economy and ultimately erode the nation's standard of living. Still, the Feb. 1 White House budget plan was a largely stand-pat document that avoided difficult decisions on curbing the unsustainable growth of federal benefit programs like the Medicare health care program for the elderly and Medicaid, which provides health care to the poor and disabled. Instead, Obama has created an 18-member fiscal reform commission that's charged with coming up with a plan to shrink the deficit to 3 percent of the economy within five years. But the Republicans to be named to the panel by congressional GOP leaders are unlikely to go along with any tax increases that might be proposed, which could ensure election-year gridlock. "While the president is intent on ramming through Congress a new trillion-dollar health-care entitlement, he appears far less concerned with addressing the looming crisis of entitlement spending already on the books," said Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the top Republican on the Budget Committee. "Instead, he delegates this task to a 'Fiscal Commission' — which would not even report until after the next election." The report says that extending tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 under GOP President George W. Bush and continuing to update the alternative minimum tax so that it won't hit millions of middle-class taxpayers would cost $3 trillion over 2011-2020. The tax cuts expire at the end of this year and Obama wants to extend them — except for individuals making more than $200,000 a year and couples making $250,000. For the ongoing budget year, CBO predicts a record $1.5 trillion deficit. That's actually a little better than predicted by the White House, but at 10 percent of gross domestic product, it's bigger than any deficit in history other than those experienced during World War II. The new report predicts that debt held by investors, including China, would spike from $7.5 trillion at the end of last year to $20.3 trillion in 2020. That means interest payments would more than quadruple — from $209 billion this year, to $916 billion by the end of the decade.

[akoff 0]

The deficit picture has turned alarmingly worse since the recession that started at the end of 2007, never dipping below 4 percent of the size of the economy over the next decade. Economists say that deficits of that size are unsustainable and could put upward pressure on interest rates, crowd out private investment in the economy and ultimately erode the nation's standard of living.

really...where have we heard this before? the congress is justs begining to catch up with what business men have been saying for almost 2 years...barak and his band of thieves still haven't figured it out. GG Barak.

[hblask 1]

http://libertyworks.com/connecting-the-oba...-drilling-dots/Two recent reports, when connected, seem to explain each other.Report # 1 The Wall Street Journal found that the Obama Administration has directed the US Import-Export Bank to loan $2 billion to Petrobras, Brazil’s state owned oil company. The money will fund exploration and drilling in a massive, off-shore oil field recently discovered off the coast of Rio. This would seem most curious and incomprehensible, considering Obama and his supporters loath oil drilling and the US government is broke. But apparently the explanation lies in report #2. Report # 2 From Reuters, a summary of a year-end SEC filing by the hedge fund owned by Billionaire and Obama Supporter George Soros. According to Reuters Soros’ SEC filing discloses a:

large bet on Brazilian gas and oil giant Petroleo Brasileiro SA also known as Petrobras.

[Zealous Donkey 0]

http://libertyworks.com/connecting-the-oba...-drilling-dots/Two recent reports, when connected, seem to explain each other.Report # 1 The Wall Street Journal found that the Obama Administration has directed the US Import-Export Bank to loan $2 billion to Petrobras, Brazil’s state owned oil company. The money will fund exploration and drilling in a massive, off-shore oil field recently discovered off the coast of Rio. This would seem most curious and incomprehensible, considering Obama and his supporters loath oil drilling and the US government is broke. But apparently the explanation lies in report #2. Report # 2 From Reuters, a summary of a year-end SEC filing by the hedge fund owned by Billionaire and Obama Supporter George Soros. According to Reuters Soros’ SEC filing discloses a:

large bet on Brazilian gas and oil giant Petroleo Brasileiro SA also known as Petrobras.

I bet this makes a big splash in the MSM.

[gobears 0]

http://libertyworks.com/connecting-the-oba...-drilling-dots/Two recent reports, when connected, seem to explain each other.Report # 1 The Wall Street Journal found that the Obama Administration has directed the US Import-Export Bank to loan $2 billion to Petrobras, Brazil’s state owned oil company. The money will fund exploration and drilling in a massive, off-shore oil field recently discovered off the coast of Rio. This would seem most curious and incomprehensible, considering Obama and his supporters loath oil drilling and the US government is broke. But apparently the explanation lies in report #2. Report # 2 From Reuters, a summary of a year-end SEC filing by the hedge fund owned by Billionaire and Obama Supporter George Soros. According to Reuters Soros’ SEC filing discloses a:

large bet on Brazilian gas and oil giant Petroleo Brasileiro SA also known as Petrobras.

Effort was started by folks appointed under GWSnopes

[hblask 1]

Effort was started by folks appointed under GWSnopes

OK, after reading that, I agree that the article I linked overstated the case, but it seems that Snopes is clearly understating the case, just accepting bureaucratic obfuscations as truth without a hint of skepticism.Overall, though, I see your point -- the link I posted was clearly worst case spin. I guess that's part of why I post here -- to hope someone will show the other side.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

OK, after reading that, I agree that the article I linked overstated the case, but it seems that Snopes is clearly understating the case, just accepting bureaucratic obfuscations as truth without a hint of skepticism...

This. I was sort of surprised that Snopes wound up sounding a little like Obama Apologists

[LongLiveYorke 38]

I bet this makes a big splash in the MSM.

It probably wont because, you know, the story is complete crap and anyone who is slightly smarter than Glen Beck knows it.