# Lou dobbs 2012



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

this just in, Lou Dobbs is considering running for potus :



what will his platform be i wonder?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

"_Washington Post staff writer Howard Kurtz contributed to this report."_

Thanks for the laugh this morning!


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> "_Washington Post staff writer Howard Kurtz contributed to this report."_
> 
> Thanks for the laugh this morning!


what? you think it funny a 'media reporter' is doing hard news? LOL


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

This is like when Ken Macha quit as manager of the Oakland A's, and his "spokesman" (read: agent) claimed his phone was "ringing off the hook" with other offers.

The truth was, Macha didn't get a single offer from any other ballclub.


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

would he team up with sarah or is he to rogue for her?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

young guy said:


> what? you think it funny a 'media reporter' is doing hard news? LOL


More Katie Couric poems please!! :crazy:


----------



## Bermuda (Aug 16, 2009)

I think he might have a shot at a more minor position like senator....not sure about him running for president since he does not have any prior political experience if I am correct


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Bermuda said:


> I think he might have a shot at a more minor position like senator....not sure about him running for president since he does not have any prior political experience if I am correct


If Al Franken can do it; Lou Dobbs can do it! President? No.


----------



## harvey_birdman (Mar 10, 2008)

This just is - Harvey_birdman is considering running for President.

But as he has limited financial resources, no political experience, independent views, and virtually no connection to established political parties he is unlikely to be successful. Stay tuned for more news as this breaking story develops.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

harvey_birdman said:


> This just is - Harvey_birdman is considering running for President.
> 
> But as he has limited financial resources, no political experience, independent views, and virtually no connection to established political parties he is unlikely to be successful. Stay tuned for more news as this breaking story develops.


But can you produce a birth certificate?:devil:


----------



## chatsworth osborne jr. (Feb 2, 2008)

*I'm totally uniformed on this guy but...*

The incident that became the battle cry for The War Against Terror could have been prevented by simple immigration enforcement.

And knowing almost nothing about either, I am multitudes more likely to vote for Dobbs or Birdman than I am for the granny from Alaska.


----------



## nick.mccann (May 3, 2009)

No, please no!


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
+1 indeed! As I opined in an earlier post (in another thread, long, long ago), the next Republican ticket is to be O'Reilly and Beck for 2012! The truth shall set us free. Hallelujah, may we all praise Fox News! :thumbs-up:


----------



## Bermuda (Aug 16, 2009)

sorry eagle, but Beck and O'Reilly are both self-proclaimed Independents. I think they believe their party neutrality will bring them more viewers. This is the same case with Dobbs. Even if Dobbs runs as an Independent though, look at the success of Joe Lieberman, the Independent Connecticut senator. 
At least Dobbs was somewhat of a political commentator for 20+ years, while Al Franken was busy writing ridiculous comedy sketches during most of that time.


----------



## sko (Jul 1, 2009)

Were Dobbs to run as an independent, he would siphon off votes from the right, thus dooming the Republican Party's chances. If he were to run on the Republican ticket, his views and all that footage of him spouting hateful garbage on his show would, similarly, doom the Republican Party's chances.

So I say, Dobbs in 2012!


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Bermuda said:


> sorry eagle, but Beck and O'Reilly are both self-proclaimed Independents. I think they believe their party neutrality will bring them more viewers. This is the same case with Dobbs. Even if Dobbs runs as an Independent though, look at the success of Joe Lieberman, the Independent Connecticut senator.
> At least Dobbs was somewhat of a political commentator for 20+ years, while Al Franken was busy writing ridiculous comedy sketches during most of that time.


The U.S. Senate needs a lot more people like Franken: brilliant people who aren't career politicians or attorneys. I've been following him in committee hearings and such, and his input so far has been amazingly refreshing and astute.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> *The U.S. Senate needs a lot more people like Franken: brilliant people who aren't career politicians or attorneys.* I've been following him in committee hearings and such, and his input so far has been amazingly refreshing and astute.


I agree.


----------



## unmodern (Aug 10, 2009)

Bermuda said:


> Beck and O'Reilly are both self-proclaimed Independents


I actually lol'd.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
LOL!
Indeed, if they walk like a duck and quack like a duck, they must be Republicans! :thumbs-up:


----------



## DCLawyer68 (Jun 1, 2009)

FrankDC said:


> The U.S. Senate needs a lot more people like Franken: brilliant people who aren't career politicians or attorneys. I've been following him in committee hearings and such, and his input so far has been amazingly refreshing and astute.


I used to hear the same thing from the GOP in the mid 1990s. Isn't it great he's so unencumbered by a detailed understanding of how things work? This is gonna be great - just like Gov Ventura.

What is it about Minnesota voters?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

DCLawyer68 said:


> I used to hear the same thing from the GOP in the mid 1990s. Isn't it great he's so unencumbered by a detailed understanding of how things work? This is gonna be great - just like Gov Ventura.
> 
> What is it about Minnesota voters?


Do you have any idea "how things work" in the U.S. Senate?

It's the ugliest cesspool of corruption, croneyism, bribes, kickbacks and payoffs in our entire federal government, and its been that way for nearly as long as the body has existed.

Also, have you listened to Franken in committee meetings and other Senate functions? Unencumbered is a precise description. And hugely refreshing IMO.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

I got a big Romney thing today ... I'm not enthusiastic ... ugh ... so, it begins ... :icon_pale:


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Am afraid to ask what _a big Romney thing_ is, but okay, I will.​


----------



## DCLawyer68 (Jun 1, 2009)

FrankDC said:


> Do you have any idea "how things work" in the U.S. Senate?
> 
> It's the ugliest cesspool of corruption, croneyism, bribes, kickbacks and payoffs in our entire federal government, and its been that way for nearly as long as the body has existed.
> 
> Also, have you listened to Franken in committee meetings and other Senate functions? Unencumbered is a precise description. And hugely refreshing IMO.


Do I have any idea "how things work" in the US Senate?

A little. I was a senior committee lawyer there for five+ years.

I'm happy to keep an open mind re the junior Senator from MN, but I've heard this spiel before (a refreshing, new brand of politician!!! new and improved!!! with extra legislating power!!!!), and it usually winds up being less than impressive.

For instance, his latest offering is an amendment to bar federal contractors that use arbitration clauses for their employees, which is basically unworkable, but is framed as an "anti-rape" provision (the case that its aimed at had to do with a female contractor who sued KBR when she was allegedly raped, and the company tried (unsuccessfully) to force her to arbitrate her claim.

Those who actually had the courage to point out that this was (a) unworkable and (b) unnecessary are being portrayed as not caring about a victim of rape.

https://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29439.html

Needless to say, Franken's trial lawyer buddies LOVE this because if enacted it would cause companies to drop arbitration for their employees.

Sounds a LOT like the same old Potmac two step to me. Worse than anyone else? No, but a LOT more like politics as usual than _Mr Smith Goes To Washington_.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Arbitration is fine for contract disputes, it was never intended to be a tool for corporations who kill and maim people to bypass our justice system.

I agree completely with Franken on this issue.


----------



## DCLawyer68 (Jun 1, 2009)

FrankDC said:


> Arbitration is fine for contract disputes, it was never intended to be a tool for corporations who kill and maim people to bypass our justice system.
> 
> I agree completely with Franken on this issue.


Did you see that the court didn't allow the company to use their arbitration clause in this case? They merely tried to.

It was a total non-issue that's now being used to eliminate arbitration from all employment related cases. That the Democrats are claiming that those who oppose such a tort lawyer fiesta are somehow insensitive to rape victims is ludicrous, and that Franken's doing their work just shows he's "one of the boys" looking out for those who bankrolled his campaign.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

DCLawyer68 said:


> Did you see that the court didn't allow the company to use their arbitration clause in this case? They *merely* tried to.


That the company under discussion _merely_ sought to seek an arbitration remedy for a felonious criminal charge connotes to you, it appears, that the case is either small potatoes or de riguer. It's neither. And they should not be allowed to _merely_ try to slip out of it. A change in the law would prevernt that. Why do you see it in purely cynical terms of more red meat for trial attorneys?
​


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Well, now that we've completely hijacked YG's thread (sorry YG)...

I believe this arbitration stuff has gotten way out of hand. Last month a friend of ours was filling out an application for basic health insurance. Buried on the last page was a requirement that he waive his constitutional rights to court and jury trials. My, how convenient for these corporations.

And then we wonder why so many Americans are demanding reform of our health care system.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Peak and Pine said:


> That the company under discussion _merely_ sought to seek an arbitration remedy for a *felonious criminal charge* connotes to you, it appears, that the case is either small potatoes or de riguer. It's neither. And they should not be allowed to _merely_ try to slip out of it. A change in the law would prevernt that. Why do you see it in purely cynical terms of more red meat for trial attorneys?
> ​


They were trying to arbitrate a criminal case??

Are you sure those are the facts??


----------



## DCLawyer68 (Jun 1, 2009)

Peak and Pine said:


> That the company under discussion _merely_ sought to seek an arbitration remedy for a felonious criminal charge connotes to you, it appears, that the case is either small potatoes or de riguer. It's neither. And they should not be allowed to _merely_ try to slip out of it. A change in the law would prevernt that. Why do you see it in purely cynical terms of more red meat for trial attorneys?
> ​


It's a civil lawsuit. The court told the company that because her suit alleged intentional wrongdoing, the arbitration clause could not be invoked. So no change in the law is actually necessary, but we can't let facts get in the way.


----------



## DCLawyer68 (Jun 1, 2009)

FrankDC said:


> Well, now that we've completely hijacked YG's thread (sorry YG)...
> 
> I believe this arbitration stuff has gotten way out of hand. Last month a friend of ours was filling out an application for basic health insurance. Buried on the last page was a requirement that he waive his constitutional rights to court and jury trials. My, how convenient for these corporations.
> 
> And then we wonder why so many Americans are demanding reform of our health care system.


Actually, for most people a trial is way too expensive to undergo. If that was his only remedy he would have been SOL quite likely.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> They were trying to arbitrate a criminal case?? *Are you sure those are the facts??*





DCLawyer68 said:


> It's a civil lawsuit... *but we can't let facts get in the way*.


Okay, then I don't know the facts. Nor had I even heard of this case until DC Lawyer mentioned it. This is what he said:



> His [Franken's] latest offering is an amendment to bar federal contractors that use arbitration clauses for their employees, which is basically unworkable, but is framed as an "anti-rape" provision (the case that its aimed at* had to do with a female contractor who sued KBR when she was allegedly raped,* and the company tried (unsuccessfully) to force her to arbitrate her claim.


I assumed rape cases were felonies, however I overlooked the word _sued_ which would connote a civil case. If you're raped, I thought you called 911 before you called 1-800-Lawyers. Apparently not. Or maybe she did and the civil suit followed. Whatever, civil matters that follow an adjudicated (was it?) crime should not be settled in the back room by the coffee maker. So I would be behind Franken in his attempts to change the law, and to write more "Cheeseburrger, cheeseburger!" scripts.
​


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Peak and Pine said:


> Whatever, civil matters that follow an adjudicated (was it?) crime should not be settled in the back room by the coffee maker.
> 
> So I would be behind Franken in his attempts to change the law.
> ​


1) Was KBR charged with the criminal act of rape?? How does a corporation rape someone?? (We already know how they do so figuratively)

2) Since arbitration was averted under the existing law, why would a "change" be required when the system appears to be working??

3) Why would determining the award for the plaintiff in this civil matter thru arbitration be so outrageous on it's face to begin with?? She wouldn't have to testify of be cross examined in open court AND the award would not be subject to a lawyers 40%+ bloodsucking fee. (Just a guess)


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Since arbitration was averted under the existing law, why would a "change" be required when the system appears to be working?


It wasn't averted, it was halted. By a court. Now she has to go to court again to argue her actual case. What do you think that extra step cost her? Why not cut out the middleman and let the litigant go straight to court to plead the case, rather than first go to court to plead that their case be allowed to be pled?

But remember (as if you'd forget) that I don't know all the facts and I'm sure not a lawyer (though I read Puddin' Head Wilson).​


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

You ediited your post and stuck in a #3 when I wasn't looking.



WouldaShoulda said:


> 3) Why would determining the award for the plaintiff in this civil matter thru arbitration be so outrageous on it's face to begin with??


_Outrageous_ is a strong word that I doubt even Franken uses in his arguments. Consider the proposed change to be just more Constitutionally correct. And who exactly are the arbiters, their knowledge, their experience and who's paying them?​


----------

