PotBSurri

You didn't "prove anything". You just spouted on about something you obviously do not know about.

If they are crooks, then why haven't the been arrested, charged and tried?

They have been sued for violation of consumer protection laws- just a the law directs- and have paid millions- billions actually- in refunds and penalties. And that is why they are political gunners against McGraw and other AGs who enforce the consumer protection laws.

I haven't spouted anything. I provided a link that showed the overwhelming spending by democrats and labor in this state as well as an article that stated the spending by trail lawyers.

Everyone knows that for decades labor has bankrolled democratic candidates in this state and liberals like you were fine with that but let a conservative/business group or individual attempt to even the playing field and you guys start crying about how the crooks are buying the election.

Grow up.

Aaron wrote:I haven't spouted anything. I provided a link that showed the overwhelming spending by democrats and labor in this state as well as an article that stated the spending by trail lawyers.

Either way, even with "trial lawyers" spending, it was still five to one spending against McGraw- almost all by the Chamber of Commerce and its political allies who represent the crooks McGraw's office sues.

No it's not.

Aaron wrote:No it's not.

OK. Then you do the math.

http://www.statejournal.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=46233

http://www.wvjusticewatch.org/money/AG_Camp_Contibutions_08_rev.jpg

Post the link on the money spent on behalf of McGraw now by labor PAC's and the WV democratic party.

Hell, how about the $10,000 in ads Warren McGraw purchased in the last week.

Or how about the money spent on trinkets by the AG's office that serve no other purpose then as re-election junk.

Spending was never 5 to 1 in in the AG's race and that is a simple fact that anyone with even a little common sense can see.

Post the link on the money spent on behalf of McGraw now by labor PAC's and the WV democratic party.

If you think it's there, then show us.

There's no "us" Ziggy. It's you. Everybody else knows that Grear did not outspend McGraw 5 to 1 as you contend.

They know that organized (crime) labor, the democratic party and trail lawyers offset the money spent by Grear and the CoC, crooks and all and that I have shown this on more then one occasion and that anyone with any common sense at all knows as well.

If McGraw is outspend so badly, whats he doing holding fundraisers in Boston where national corporate law firms donated thousands including $6000 from Washington-based corporate law firm Dickstein Shapiro.

Your refusal to admit the truth doesn't change it.

Based on the coalition list, I'm sure you're either a part of this group or you know of it. And I guess you would contend that not one penny of that $300K went to the McGraw campaign or supported him in any way, shape or form, huh Ziggy.

At a state level, it is largely organized labor PACs that are big spenders, with the West Virginia AFL-CIO contributing more than $300,000 to candidates and causes, according to campaign finance reports filed with the West Virginia Secretary of State's Office.

source

Campaign spending is a matter of public record.

You might want to start looking here.
http://www.wvsos.com/elections/cfreports/search/searchPACs.asp

It's all there- labor, trial lawyers, political parties, etc.

Based on the coalition list, I'm sure you're either a part of this group or you know of it. And I guess you would contend that not one penny of that $300K went to the McGraw campaign or supported him in any way, shape or form, huh Ziggy.

You are wrong again. I would not contend that- because I have read the 2008 campaign finance reports- of the State AFL-CIO, of McGraw's own campaign, of the State Democratic Party, and of the trial lawyers PAC. And you obvioulsy have not.

Then you know there is no way McGraw was outspent 5 to 1 so why do you keep contending he was?

Because the numbers I posted, which you have not disputed, and the pie chart numbers you posted, which I have not disputed, show us that.

And none of those numbers include PAC or the democratic money spent on behalf of McGraw which you confirmed was spent.

Nor does it include any of the money spent on trinkets or contributed by his brother in the last days of the election.

Common sense alone dictates that once that money is taken into consideration, there is no way the spending is 5 to 1 in favor of Grear.

And no offense, but you didn't post a link to your numbers so without confirmation of those numbers, I don't know that they are believable.

Care to offer a link to some solid proof on those numbers?

I gave you the web link that leads to the campaign contributions of the trial lawyers, of the local and state AFL-CIO organizations, of the local and state Democratic Party committees, and of McGraw's own campaign. If you won't go there and look it up like I did, and show us what you contend, then you are just blowing smoke.

I was unable to find the link to Warren's either contributions or independent expenditures. But for the sake of argument I will concede the reported $12,000 expenditure by Warren McGraw. But even with it, the industry campaign against Darrell McGraw is still more than five to one over both the direct contributions and independent PAC expenditures of the trial lawyers, of the AFL-CIO and of brother Warren combined.

I disagree with your assertion that the WV Chamber of Commerce is interested in tobacco.

The members of the Chambers of Commerce in this state are the folks employing West Virginians.

Those trial lawyers are parasites that feed off the misery of others, create problems where none exist, drive up the cost of pretty much every kind of insurance consumers purchase, not to mention medical services and everything from soup to nuts.

Those are Darrel McGraw's campaign contributors. Those are his friends and associates. That's hunky dorey though. If the businesses that provide jobs for the residents of this state don't want him, of course the public must need him.

And what about the business organizations who don't want Attorneys general suing for violations of consumer protection laws? They outspend "trial lawyers" more than five to one against McGraw. And they spend similarly against AGs in other states who try to enforce the statutes.

Those trial lawyers are parasites that feed off the misery of others,

And who are the parasites who actually create, as well as feed off, enable and encourage the misery of others? They, of course, are the crooks in industry and the enablers and political apologists of those crooks- including their Chambers of Commerce and "tort reformer" political allies of corporate crooks. Without corporate crooks, the trial lawyers who sue them would soon wither away.

Without corporate crooks, the trial lawyers who sue them would soon wither away.

That's not true. Those lawyers file many lawsuits to play the odds. Odds are if they file enough sometimes they will win, even if there was no real basis for the lawsuit. It is what they do and we all pay the price.

Trying again- And what about the business organizations who don't want Attorneys general suing for violations of consumer protection laws? They outspend "trial lawyers" more than five to one against McGraw. And they spend similarly against AGs in other states who try to enforce the statutes.

Business owners cannot possibly compete with trial lawyers, Ziggy.

When an attorney decides to take a case....slip and fall, wrongful death, lost pants, there is no upfront cost to the litigant. To the lawyers it is a calculated risk. If they roll the dice enough times they know they'll get that big payoff.

If you're a business owner, you're screwed. You must pay an attorney or a firm to defend you. That is reality. I had an old man rear end me almost 7 years ago. He was driving way too fast for the road conditions and hit the back of my Blazer as I was taking a right turn into a parking lot on Rte 1 in Westerly RI. It is a 4 lane divided highway over there and the speed limit is 50 mph. I'd say he was doing all of that maybe more in the snow on very slushy roads. My son was only 11 weeks old at the time so the police officer who responded called for paramedics who told me we should go to the ER to have him checked out. Infants can't really tell you when they're hurt.

Do you have any idea how many people told me to sue that old man? His insurance company was very good. They paid for the damage to my SUV, the ambulance and ER bills, a new car seat for the baby and $500 for my son's "inconvenience". I think they were pinching themselves that we weren't suing! I was just thankful my son wasn't injured, in fact, other than a few minutes of pain in my back, NOBODY was injured.......and that man totaled his car. His engine was up in his dashboard.

I am convinced most people would have called one of these personal injury lawyers who advertise and have magnets attached to the Yellow Pages. A Danny Klein probably would have taken the case even though NOBODY WAS INJURED!!!!

When you're a small business owner things can be much worse. All it really takes is one unscrupulous person to sue you because you lost their pants, or they choked on a fish bone, or they busted their ass getting out of their car in your parking lot to cause financial devastation.

Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, Darrel McGraw is part of that culture and his actions, allowing those trial lawyers who contribute to his political campaigns to reap the benefits of tobacco & oxy settlements provides those crooks with plenty of cash on hand to help finance their next shake down.

That aside, if McGraw had any integrity, he wouldn't funnel work and cash to his campaign contributors. He shouldn't do it. He should also turn over settlement funds to the legislature for disbursement.

Do you have any idea how many people told me to sue that old man? His insurance company was very good. They paid for the damage to my SUV, the ambulance and ER bills, a new car seat for the baby and $500 for my son's "inconvenience".

In October 2007 my wife was rear-ended similarly, and the insurer for that driver settled with her in the same spirit of fairness as you indicate here.

But it does not always happen that way. Some insurance companies claims adjusters simply say, as one told me about 25 years ago when a drunk driver struck and damaged my vehicle, "We believe our insured was probably at fault. Sue her and we'll pay your claim." The amount of damages was between $1500 and $2,000. I filed suit, without a lawyer, but by the time the Court got around to serving her notice of the suit, she had moved away and was not able to be located by the process server. I could have hired someone to track her down, but not for the amount of the claim. Her insurer had cancelled her policy after the wreck, and said it did not know to where she had moved. But if there had been significant injuries that ran the damages into the tens of thousands of dollars, I would have had to hire a trial lawyer to recover those damages. It happens that way more often than you want to acknowledge.

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?

Besides, the example I provided wasn't to try to make the insurance industry appear to be the epitomy of fair play and benevolence. The example I provided was more about just how sue happy people in this country have become.

When our daughter Leah was stillborn nearly every friend and relation we had encouraged us to sue the midwife who delivered her.....even though we knew it was not her fault. Sometimes really horrible things happen beyond our control and I know that no amount of money would ever make up for the loss of our little girl. Yet I guarantee you there are lawyers who would have filed a lawsuit on our behalf, we had one call us offering his service. A friend of a friend who gave him our phone number. And for what? Debbie didn't do anything wrong but her malpractice premiums would have gone up just the same and Leah still would be lost to us forever.

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. He files lawsuits on behalf of the citizens of this state subcontracting the work out to these barracudas who contribute to his campaign war chest........to keep him in power so he can feed them more cases with big payoffs. Then, to add insult to injury, instead of turning the money over to the legislature, or compensating the survivors or victims, he doles it out to like it's his personal piggy bank. To say his moral compass is off would be an understatement.

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.