PotBSurri

ziggy wrote:

Darrel McGraw perpetuates that kind of bad behavior. He, like many men with power, are interested in maintaining and increasing that power at any price.

I have known Darrell McGraw for 20 years or so. You obviously do not know him at all.

I don't have a problem with him going after those who do wrong such as the credit card companies. It's not those types of suits I have a problem with.

I don't even have a problem with him going after tobacco even though all it amounted to was another tax as those who use cigarettes do so in the manner prescribed by the manufacturer. (If the product is as harmful as the government alleges it is, they should ban the product, not tax it at 82% and then sue for more which puts the tax at about 94% with all the suits but that's another topic)

I don't agree with his jumping in on the paint suit but then I don't think any AG in any state has a suit there. I think all they are doing is trying to settle with the Sherman Williams of the world and get a quick cash settlement. Those are the types of suits I have a problem with and the fact that he's doing it with lawyers that that he hires no bid contingency fees (illegal but then I've proven that) who then turn around and donate to his campaign.

I also have a problem with the manner in which he disburses settlement money, in violation of the the WV constitution, which states the legislator has all appropriations power.

I guess the reason you excuse him for his crimes while wailing on the "crooks at the C of C is because you've known him for 20 years. That and the fact that your MO is to excuse those you politically agree with while vilifying those who disagree with you.

Stephanie wrote:

Look, a drunk driver hits your vehicle and the insurance company refuses to pay? Something's not adding up with that story. If she were intoxicated, didn't this state have drunk driving laws then? Why wasn't she arrested?

Yes, the driver was arrested.

But that is a criminal process. None of it forces a driver or his/her insurance company to pay for civil damages. That is why sometimes the only recourse is to decide if the hassle of initiating a lawsuit is worth pursuing.

ziggy wrote:

Darrel McGraw perpetuates that kind of bad behavior. He, like many men with power, are interested in maintaining and increasing that power at any price.

I have known Darrell McGraw for 20 years or so. You obviously do not know him at all.

All you have is the hype generated by self-admitted crooks and their allies in economic crimes against innocent West Virginians. You and I know that if McGraw turned a blind eye, as did his predecessors, and ignored corporate crooks and thieves who prey on older and otherwise naive and gullible West Virginians, that the Chamers of Commerce and the "tort reformers" wouldn't give a damn about his "moral compass".
"Moral compass", indeed. What hipocrites these corporate crooks and their defenders are. If the Chamber of Commerce had any "moral compass" it would be joining these AG lawsuits around the country- not encouraging corporate crooks by defending them in the Courts.

I know plenty about Darrel McGraw. I know he allows trial lawyers to fund his campaign war chest and then hires the same firms that donate cash to litigate big money cases for him. I know he refuses to obey the WV State Constitution and state law with the settlement money he receives. I know he has the Feds chomping at the bit ready to withhold funds because McGraw foolishly decided to spend settlement money however he saw fit.

I know enough about McGraw to know he's bad for West Virginians.

"...corporate crooks and their defenders..."

There are no corporate crooks. There are only human crooks. Corporations do not make men any more or less crooked. Take Darrell McGraw. He is not a corporation but his office is crooked as any creek in the state. Mr. McGraw appeals to you only because you think he has it out for crooked corporations. You have blinders on.

You have blinders on.

I do not deny having blinders on about many matters. Like the old plow horse, I struggle to see around those blinders at every turn. Sometimes I am successful, sometimes not.

But surely you are not suggesting that only Ziggies have blinders on, or are you?

I would suggest that Ziggy is one of the worst offendes of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" doctrine.

No, old Ziggy is not the only one with blinders on. But I'm sure you'd prefer your wonder boy not have the taint of scandal by hiring his campaign contributors while his staff of two hundred languishes.