You're complaining about ad hominems when you called McCain a "Nazi traitor"? Christ, politics brings out the idiots.
Was there something in particular about that that you object to? He voted for the telecom immunity bill making him a traitor. He's a Republican, hence a Nazi. You do know they were gung ho Hitler supporters in WW2, right? You do know Nazism is characterized by rabid anti-leftism and since WW2 the Republicans have defined themselves the same way, right?
So, yes, Nazi traitor is a completely accurate and objective description of McCain.
...as long as I don't have to hear the words "It's George Bush's fault" ever again.
Kill yourself now then. We're still paying Reagan's debts and fighting the terrorists he trained armed and funded through selling crack. Bush's legacy hasn't even begun.
For some reason I am REALLY engergised by these US elections. I am UK resident and full time worker.
Well, then you're an idiot. It's a choice between the Nazi traitor McCain and the other traitor who also voted for the "let the government spy on everyone, constitution be damned" act.
Either way, fascism wins and America pisses on the graves of all of our WW2 vets. The sick part is some of them are still alive knowing they'll be resting in the piss of their nation in a big fuck you to their sacrifice.
As long as you're on public property, no one has the right to keep you from shooting video.
That's a very irresponsible statement, Roblimo.
No one has the right, but they do have the power and you could well be beaten and thrown into jail for it. Hell that could happen even if you're in your own home. That is the reality we now live in. I encourage you to go ahead with it, but don't delude yourself that you have any rights in America. Live like you will, but understand that there are consequences and that you have no rights at all that haven't already been publicly trumped by police brutality and ignored by the public at large. I encourage you to arm yourself well and if a police officer approaches you, shoot them in the face first thing. It might be your only chance to get the message out. This is the world we live in.
Again, very irresponsible of you to leave out the reality of the situation which we've already seen at the Republican convention.
Naturally you won't be allowed into Heaven, since you'd eventually make it crappy for everyone there.
The being who invented ebola, torture, and every other disgusting thing you can think of is running the place, so it's hard to imaging how a person could make it any worse.
Seriously, you loons need to learn to think about your brainwashing honestly for 5 minutes. That would be the day all religion died forever.
Actually, that's exactly what it is. Patriotism is loving your country. Wearing a flag pin has no bearing on that, and given that it is the Republicans who have been making a big deal about it and pushing the idea that not wearing one makes one less patriotic and the Republicans have been actively engaged in treason the entire time, it's damn obvious that wearing a stupid fucking pin has nothing to do with patriotism. Refusing to wear one on the grounds that it associates you with traitors *is* a patriotic act.
So, yes, all it is is jingoism. You haven't said anything that would counter that fact.
If you think wearing stupid pins is patriotism, you're an idiot and I have to ask, why do you hate America so much that you'd try and sell ignorant empty gestures as patriotic?
Obama's not qualified either, not only because he's probably a Muslim (and again, not the moderate kind, but the Farrakhan kind),
Do you have any clue at all how fucking stupid that makes you sound? If he were what you claim he is, then he could never, under any circumstances, deny it as he has. He's be subject to execution, and again, according to your dumb ass he'd kill himself long before anybody else got a chance, since you claim he's such a true believer.
Seriously, try applying a scrap of sanity to your post and it is obvious that you're completely full of shit.
With patriotism, when people do things because of tradition, when you refuse to follow tradition, your patriotism is in question to those that hold tradition as a value. If you don't want to conform, fine, just don't be surprised when people have questions about your positions.
What you're talking about is called jingoism, not patriotism. It's pretty much the polar opposite as convincingly demonstrated by the actions of the traitors in the white house who are the ones who started that whole flag pin, anti-American bullshit.
Communism is the left-wing version of Fascism and Communism existed first as Left Wing Dictatorships and Benito Mussolini created Fascism as the Right-Wing version of Communism to combat it.
No, you're just an idiot. Fascism and Communism are opposite extremes. Fascism is right wing totalitarianism and communism is left wing totalitarianism, but totalitarianism is not the same as fascism as you're trying to say. Both are bad, and both have similarities, but they are fundamentally different things.
All you're doing is spreading fascist propaganda. They like to spread stupid bullshit like you're spouting because it's a way of pretending that the real fascists don't even exist.
Moveon.org is the head of the Ultra-Left-Wing Liberal movement in the USA and keeps saying hateful propaganda in blogs they hire shills to write and in Newspapers and TV shows as well.
Laughable. They're moderate left wing and are pretty accurate, at least as compared to the main stream media which is right wing.
I salute the Classic Liberals that are not at all like their Ultra-Left-Wing Liberal counterparts.
They're not at all like their right wing counterparts either. Both the left and the right despise Liberalism. In America, the right has a dominant position and has for some time. If you could pull your head out of your ass long enough to learn what left and right mean, you wouldn't come off as an ignorant fascist shill.
IMHO liberalism is just the old conservative monarchism, but dressed in sheep's clothing to look warm & friendly.
No, that would be conservatism. It's right there in your sentence, so I'm surprised you missed it. Monarchy is the canonical example of the right wing.
At its heart, American liberalism is about government being in charge while the individual is forced to fall-in line like a puppet.
As is American conservatism. that's why actual Liberalism is so despised by the right and the left and has been under assault since its inception.
It's nothing new. It dates all the way back to the Roman Empire.
Before that even. The Roman Republic, for example.
Having to use drugs (or any other substance) to achieve satisfaction is a symptom of an ill society.
Nobody said anything about having to do something. Wanting to do something for fun is perfectly healthy and normal. Excessive use can lead to problems, but let's not pretend that's anywhere near the majority of drug use.
A healthy society requires healthy citizens, in mind and in body. Using drugs is, in many cases, not really a choice of the person doing the drugs, but the result of peer pressure (i.e. "take drugs to look cool or fit in").
In most cases, however, it is the choice of the person. You just keep taking fringe cases and pretending that's the norm.
You mistakenly think of promiscuity as freedom.
Which is idiotic nonsense. I said nothing that could be interpreted that way. If somebody wants to be promiscuous, then good for them. They have the freedom to do so and I have no right or reason to stand in their way. Given certain precautions, it's a perfectly healthy, happy choice.
Therefore betraying both his client and his professional duty. It wouldn't have been a very ethical thing to do at all, and certainly wouldn't have given him any grounds to call anyone else a traitor.
It would have been betraying his client and his professional duty, but it would have been *not* betraying his country and the hundreds of millions of citizens. It would have been his only ethical choice. Aiding and abetting treason is far worse than violating a professional code of ethics in order to stop acts of treason by the president. It's the only path that would have left him with the integrity to call someone a traitor. Otherwise, he's an accessory to treason.
Any non-dictatorial form of government requires rule of law, because the only alternative is rule by someone's whims. Rule of law requires fair trials even to the worst scumbags, because otherwise it can be circumvented by declaring someone a scumbag
However, the problem is that we do not have the rule of law in this country and the pardon of Nixon is what caused it to reach this level. Our rulers are officially above the law. That's what Ford said loud and clear when he pardoned that traitor. Since then we've had Reagan selling crack to buy guns for terrorists and Bush setting up death camps, spying on everyone and even getting Congress to retroactively pardon him for treason.
I'm sorry, but I will take one lawyer showing ethics and getting disbarred for it over watching the elimination of the rule of law and the deterioration of this once great nation into a fascist police state.
Fair trial requires that your defense attorney and everyone else acting on your behalf keep on doing that work to the best of their ability, no matter how many vomit bags they might need to use in the process, because otherwise declaring you scumbag tilts the odds against you, thus circumventing the rule of law.
Except, again, you completely miss the point that this lawyer was arguing to eliminate the rule of law, but only as applied to those in power. That is far far more dangerous than one lawyer showing enough integrity to sacrifice his career to protect the rule of law.
This brings me back to the OP, who claimed that someones laywer should have "quit on the spot" and claimed his client was a "traitor". Idiotic.
No, I did not say that he should have "claimed" that his client was a traitor. It's a fact that Nixon was a traitor and he was asking the lawyer to aid and abet him in his treasonous activities. My assertion is that the lawyer should damn well have quit on the spot and thrown that piece of shit to the wolves. Sure he would have been disbarred, but that was his only ethical option at that point. Sure he had a responsibility to his client, but that was clearly trumped by his responsibility to the several hundred million citizens of this country who he decided to betray instead. His complete lack of integrity and ethics is why he did that.
Lawyers are loyal to their clients alone, and this is how it should be. I have an expectation that I can get the best possible unbiased advice and representation in the legal system, and this allows a much better percieved fairness.
So If I talk to my lawyer about how cute your pre teen daughter is and how much I'd like to rape her and go over my plans to do so with him then he should just keep his mouth shut and let it happen and even offer me advice on how to get away with it? The situation we're talking about is far far worse than that, so if you're not ok with that, then you don't actually believe your own arguments.
To over-generalize the contributions of one profession or the other on society is specious.
I'm not over generalizing, or even generalizing at all. A Mathematician pursuing his profession doesn't radically alter the structure of society. Engineers and physicists are more likely to. A Lawyer pursuing his profession can and sometimes does, often for the worse.
To rebut your bald statement about the destructive nature of lawyers, it's worth noting that lawyers are responsible for: creating civil liberties such as the right for women and the right for 'colored' people to vote and attend school with white people; writing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; defending Galileo Galilei when he published a "truth" (mathematics) when the church persecuted him for challenging their proprietary access to absolute "truth".
It was a bald statement, but not an absolute one. Your rebuttal fails, though, when you consider that there were lawyers arguing against all of those civil liberties and the rest. Those people *are* scum.
Finally, some attribute the commerce clause (and WTO/GATT-like reductions in interstate discriminatory trade practices) with the creation of more wealth in the United States than any other law in the US federation.
The interstate commerce clause as it was intended is great, but I obviously wasn't talking about that which is why I spoke of the mockery which has been made of it. All the various farm welfare programs, drug laws and the like are all justified by the sleazy, entirely unjustifiable interpretation of it to mean that the government can do anything to anyone anywhere since anything could possibly have an affect on some form of commerce. That was a scumbag lawyer who pushed that bullshit through may he burn in hell.
With your position, no one would ever have challenged segregation in the Southern US, the right for women to vote, the right for women to have abortions, or other now often considered fundamental rights; and
No, with my position there never would have been a need to challenge such things as there was never any justification for them in the first place.
That is unintelligible nonsense. As one specific rebuttal, contingency fees give good lawyers economic incentive to engage in representation for claims by people who otherwise could not afford access to justice.
No, it's a simple statement of the facts as they are. Explain, if you would, how I can get a good lawyer on contingency when I'm charged with a crime? There's no payoff to cover the fees. I get a public defender which means basically pot luck. There are very good lawyers in the public defender's office and very poor ones. I had the misfortune to need a public defender long ago when I got the shit beat out of me by some cops who then charged me with assault (when my foot hit one of their shins when they were running up to beat me on the head with their maglite when I was already cuffed and maced) destruction of property (when said flashlight no longer worked after impacting my cranium) and resisting arrest (when I was on the ground covering my head yelling "I'm not resisting arrest"). I had 2 witnesses who testified and all of those specifics were brought up in court and not refuted. I still lost because my lawyer had more fun making assinine arguments which while logically valid were ridiculous and pissed off the jury. I saw the moment at which I lost in the juror's faces when my lawyer was going off on his third such tangent. Had I been able to afford a decent lawyer at the time it would have been an open and shut case and then I might have been able to get a lawyer on contingency to sue the city, but without being able to afford a competent lawyer for the criminal trial that avenue was cut off.
Hell, OJ got away with murder solely due to his ability to afford a row of sleazy lawyers.
Without lawyers, you wouldn't have to consider what it would be like to live in this world- we still would.
He knew it was a nutty position to take, so he explicitly stated that it was his client's position, not his.
However were he possessed of even the slightest hint of ethics he would have quit on the spot, called a press conference, told the public that the president was a traitor who intended to be a monarch, and that we needed to pull a Louis XVI to save the Republic. But the fame and potential wealth he could get by defending a traitor outweighed any integrity that scumbag might once have had.
Ford's folly killed any hope of that leading to Reagan the terrorist supporting crack dealer and the Bush crime syndicate. Ever increasing crimes against the nation and never any punishment. It must be good to be the king.
That, in a nutshell, is the problem with our country.
In my opinion, it's the judge's job to see through the big words and recognize a ludicrous case for what it is.
But it doesn't even get to the judge (generally) until a lawyer has taken it on, made up arguments to sell it etc. The judge has ultimate responsibility while the lawyer is already on the clock, having completely rejected his (assuming an actual ludicrous case here) responsibility to the law in favor of the dollar.
All you're doing is basically the same thing as the religious and the Dem/Rep big government Nanny/Nazi state types do. Push the responsibility uphill until it gets big enough to roll down on your head.
Hot tip, in most conflicts, both sides are wrong. In the case of stupid laws, prosecutions, or defenses, the Judge is wrong for allowing it and the lawyer is wrong for taking the case.
Ok now we know that the MAAFIA (RIAA/MPAA) is in bed with MTV and Time/Warner/AOL/Turner House of Pancakes running MTV are looney ultra-left-wing Liberals working for Hollywood and Record Companies who bribe them to play the same 12 videos over and over again each day to promote their sales.
No, that would be the far right wing. Not at all left wing, certainly not "ultra" and not at all "Liberal". That's straight up Fascist bullshit like Reagan and Hitler. Still big government, but way the fuck over to the other side of that.
You're noticing the relatively trivial fact that those corporations own the Democratic party in particular as opposed to the Republican party while ignoring the important fact that corporations own your government. That's Fascism.
Pull your head out of your ass and learn to think, not just repeat shit you heard the guy raping your ass say.
Lawyers don't cause litigation. Parties cause litigation.
Lawyers, however, enable litigation. In fact, for some lawyers, that *is* their business. You can talk in abstractions all you like, but the main difference between mathematicians and lawyers is that the mathematician's love for bizarre, pedantic arguments stays in the ivory towers. Lawyers do the same thing having massively damaging affects on the real world. Sure, some douche hired a lawyer to push some ludicrous case, and he's a douche. No argument there, but when a lawyer who's good enough at his trade argues a bullshit case convincingly that can change the way the law is applied to everyone in incredibly destructive ways. Take the mockery that's been made of the interstate commerce clause alone. Bad lawyers doing bad things that has cost the country incalculable amounts of money, integrity and damn near anything else you'd care to mention.
On the whole, reasonable, intelligent parties = no ligitation = no lawyers.
But your calculation is incomplete. Why aren't the ridiculous cases refused? Because while *you* might possess ethics, there are plenty of people who don't. Some of those people are lawyers. So even if the rest of the people were sane and decent, the sleazebag lawyers would be chasing those ambulances and working to convince the weak willed and stupid that they're owed. That's how they make a living, after all.
They also would work to arrange new ways of creating conflicts. That's just basic common sense, coupled with a society which puts profit above all and in which buying the better lawyer buys the better "justice".
Slashdot Mirror
You're complaining about ad hominems when you called McCain a "Nazi traitor"? Christ, politics brings out the idiots.
Was there something in particular about that that you object to? He voted for the telecom immunity bill making him a traitor. He's a Republican, hence a Nazi. You do know they were gung ho Hitler supporters in WW2, right? You do know Nazism is characterized by rabid anti-leftism and since WW2 the Republicans have defined themselves the same way, right?
So, yes, Nazi traitor is a completely accurate and objective description of McCain.
Last time I tried to get my car to roll backwards by turning on the headlights, it took a really long time....
I had the same problem once. It turns out you need to let off the emergency brake.
Oh, no actual factual rebuttals, merely ad hominems completely divorced from reality. Fair enough.
Have fun in the death camps!
Ahh, the moose fucking bridge to nowhere shredded in a puddle of melting piss. It's hard to imagine a more appropriate ending for such a vile beast.
Oh I forgot we're supposed to have an irrational hatred for anyone that says anything possibly construed as positive about the media.
No, you're supposed to have an entirely rational distrust of the media and recognize what they are.
Pretending that they are anything except your enemy is entirely irrational. That is their business plan, look it up.
...as long as I don't have to hear the words "It's George Bush's fault" ever again.
Kill yourself now then. We're still paying Reagan's debts and fighting the terrorists he trained armed and funded through selling crack. Bush's legacy hasn't even begun.
For some reason I am REALLY engergised by these US elections. I am UK resident and full time worker.
Well, then you're an idiot. It's a choice between the Nazi traitor McCain and the other traitor who also voted for the "let the government spy on everyone, constitution be damned" act.
Either way, fascism wins and America pisses on the graves of all of our WW2 vets. The sick part is some of them are still alive knowing they'll be resting in the piss of their nation in a big fuck you to their sacrifice.
As long as you're on public property, no one has the right to keep you from shooting video.
That's a very irresponsible statement, Roblimo.
No one has the right, but they do have the power and you could well be beaten and thrown into jail for it. Hell that could happen even if you're in your own home. That is the reality we now live in. I encourage you to go ahead with it, but don't delude yourself that you have any rights in America. Live like you will, but understand that there are consequences and that you have no rights at all that haven't already been publicly trumped by police brutality and ignored by the public at large. I encourage you to arm yourself well and if a police officer approaches you, shoot them in the face first thing. It might be your only chance to get the message out. This is the world we live in.
Again, very irresponsible of you to leave out the reality of the situation which we've already seen at the Republican convention.
Seeing that people get paid to do this nonsense for you, why don't you just watch one channel and let them do the work?
They're paid to do it *to* you, not for you. Pull your head out of your ass and learn to think.. It's called being a citizen.
Naturally you won't be allowed into Heaven, since you'd eventually make it crappy for everyone there.
The being who invented ebola, torture, and every other disgusting thing you can think of is running the place, so it's hard to imaging how a person could make it any worse.
Seriously, you loons need to learn to think about your brainwashing honestly for 5 minutes. That would be the day all religion died forever.
And no, it is not jingoism in any way.
Actually, that's exactly what it is. Patriotism is loving your country. Wearing a flag pin has no bearing on that, and given that it is the Republicans who have been making a big deal about it and pushing the idea that not wearing one makes one less patriotic and the Republicans have been actively engaged in treason the entire time, it's damn obvious that wearing a stupid fucking pin has nothing to do with patriotism. Refusing to wear one on the grounds that it associates you with traitors *is* a patriotic act.
So, yes, all it is is jingoism. You haven't said anything that would counter that fact.
If you think wearing stupid pins is patriotism, you're an idiot and I have to ask, why do you hate America so much that you'd try and sell ignorant empty gestures as patriotic?
Obama's not qualified either, not only because he's probably a Muslim (and again, not the moderate kind, but the Farrakhan kind),
Do you have any clue at all how fucking stupid that makes you sound? If he were what you claim he is, then he could never, under any circumstances, deny it as he has. He's be subject to execution, and again, according to your dumb ass he'd kill himself long before anybody else got a chance, since you claim he's such a true believer.
Seriously, try applying a scrap of sanity to your post and it is obvious that you're completely full of shit.
With patriotism, when people do things because of tradition, when you refuse to follow tradition, your patriotism is in question to those that hold tradition as a value. If you don't want to conform, fine, just don't be surprised when people have questions about your positions.
What you're talking about is called jingoism, not patriotism. It's pretty much the polar opposite as convincingly demonstrated by the actions of the traitors in the white house who are the ones who started that whole flag pin, anti-American bullshit.
Communism is the left-wing version of Fascism and Communism existed first as Left Wing Dictatorships and Benito Mussolini created Fascism as the Right-Wing version of Communism to combat it.
No, you're just an idiot. Fascism and Communism are opposite extremes. Fascism is right wing totalitarianism and communism is left wing totalitarianism, but totalitarianism is not the same as fascism as you're trying to say. Both are bad, and both have similarities, but they are fundamentally different things.
All you're doing is spreading fascist propaganda. They like to spread stupid bullshit like you're spouting because it's a way of pretending that the real fascists don't even exist.
Moveon.org is the head of the Ultra-Left-Wing Liberal movement in the USA and keeps saying hateful propaganda in blogs they hire shills to write and in Newspapers and TV shows as well.
Laughable. They're moderate left wing and are pretty accurate, at least as compared to the main stream media which is right wing.
I salute the Classic Liberals that are not at all like their Ultra-Left-Wing Liberal counterparts.
They're not at all like their right wing counterparts either. Both the left and the right despise Liberalism. In America, the right has a dominant position and has for some time. If you could pull your head out of your ass long enough to learn what left and right mean, you wouldn't come off as an ignorant fascist shill.
Where it says, "Enable 3G" slide the switch to "Off"
Waaaaaaaaa my first gen iPhone doesn't have that option. I'm going to call TMobile and complain to them about that.
IMHO liberalism is just the old conservative monarchism, but dressed in sheep's clothing to look warm & friendly.
No, that would be conservatism. It's right there in your sentence, so I'm surprised you missed it. Monarchy is the canonical example of the right wing.
At its heart, American liberalism is about government being in charge while the individual is forced to fall-in line like a puppet.
As is American conservatism. that's why actual Liberalism is so despised by the right and the left and has been under assault since its inception.
It's nothing new. It dates all the way back to the Roman Empire.
Before that even. The Roman Republic, for example.
Having to use drugs (or any other substance) to achieve satisfaction is a symptom of an ill society.
Nobody said anything about having to do something. Wanting to do something for fun is perfectly healthy and normal. Excessive use can lead to problems, but let's not pretend that's anywhere near the majority of drug use.
A healthy society requires healthy citizens, in mind and in body. Using drugs is, in many cases, not really a choice of the person doing the drugs, but the result of peer pressure (i.e. "take drugs to look cool or fit in").
In most cases, however, it is the choice of the person. You just keep taking fringe cases and pretending that's the norm.
You mistakenly think of promiscuity as freedom.
Which is idiotic nonsense. I said nothing that could be interpreted that way.
If somebody wants to be promiscuous, then good for them. They have the freedom to do so and I have no right or reason to stand in their way. Given certain precautions, it's a perfectly healthy, happy choice.
Therefore betraying both his client and his professional duty. It wouldn't have been a very ethical thing to do at all, and certainly wouldn't have given him any grounds to call anyone else a traitor.
It would have been betraying his client and his professional duty, but it would have been *not* betraying his country and the hundreds of millions of citizens. It would have been his only ethical choice. Aiding and abetting treason is far worse than violating a professional code of ethics in order to stop acts of treason by the president. It's the only path that would have left him with the integrity to call someone a traitor. Otherwise, he's an accessory to treason.
Any non-dictatorial form of government requires rule of law, because the only alternative is rule by someone's whims. Rule of law requires fair trials even to the worst scumbags, because otherwise it can be circumvented by declaring someone a scumbag
However, the problem is that we do not have the rule of law in this country and the pardon of Nixon is what caused it to reach this level. Our rulers are officially above the law. That's what Ford said loud and clear when he pardoned that traitor. Since then we've had Reagan selling crack to buy guns for terrorists and Bush setting up death camps, spying on everyone and even getting Congress to retroactively pardon him for treason.
I'm sorry, but I will take one lawyer showing ethics and getting disbarred for it over watching the elimination of the rule of law and the deterioration of this once great nation into a fascist police state.
Fair trial requires that your defense attorney and everyone else acting on your behalf keep on doing that work to the best of their ability, no matter how many vomit bags they might need to use in the process, because otherwise declaring you scumbag tilts the odds against you, thus circumventing the rule of law.
Except, again, you completely miss the point that this lawyer was arguing to eliminate the rule of law, but only as applied to those in power. That is far far more dangerous than one lawyer showing enough integrity to sacrifice his career to protect the rule of law.
This brings me back to the OP, who claimed that someones laywer should have "quit on the spot" and claimed his client was a "traitor". Idiotic.
No, I did not say that he should have "claimed" that his client was a traitor. It's a fact that Nixon was a traitor and he was asking the lawyer to aid and abet him in his treasonous activities. My assertion is that the lawyer should damn well have quit on the spot and thrown that piece of shit to the wolves. Sure he would have been disbarred, but that was his only ethical option at that point. Sure he had a responsibility to his client, but that was clearly trumped by his responsibility to the several hundred million citizens of this country who he decided to betray instead.
His complete lack of integrity and ethics is why he did that.
Lawyers are loyal to their clients alone, and this is how it should be. I have an expectation that I can get the best possible unbiased advice and representation in the legal system, and this allows a much better percieved fairness.
So If I talk to my lawyer about how cute your pre teen daughter is and how much I'd like to rape her and go over my plans to do so with him then he should just keep his mouth shut and let it happen and even offer me advice on how to get away with it? The situation we're talking about is far far worse than that, so if you're not ok with that, then you don't actually believe your own arguments.
To over-generalize the contributions of one profession or the other on society is specious.
I'm not over generalizing, or even generalizing at all. A Mathematician pursuing his profession doesn't radically alter the structure of society. Engineers and physicists are more likely to. A Lawyer pursuing his profession can and sometimes does, often for the worse.
To rebut your bald statement about the destructive nature of lawyers, it's worth noting that lawyers are responsible for: creating civil liberties such as the right for women and the right for 'colored' people to vote and attend school with white people; writing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; defending Galileo Galilei when he published a "truth" (mathematics) when the church persecuted him for challenging their proprietary access to absolute "truth".
It was a bald statement, but not an absolute one. Your rebuttal fails, though, when you consider that there were lawyers arguing against all of those civil liberties and the rest. Those people *are* scum.
Finally, some attribute the commerce clause (and WTO/GATT-like reductions in interstate discriminatory trade practices) with the creation of more wealth in the United States than any other law in the US federation.
The interstate commerce clause as it was intended is great, but I obviously wasn't talking about that which is why I spoke of the mockery which has been made of it. All the various farm welfare programs, drug laws and the like are all justified by the sleazy, entirely unjustifiable interpretation of it to mean that the government can do anything to anyone anywhere since anything could possibly have an affect on some form of commerce.
That was a scumbag lawyer who pushed that bullshit through may he burn in hell.
With your position, no one would ever have challenged segregation in the Southern US, the right for women to vote, the right for women to have abortions, or other now often considered fundamental rights; and
No, with my position there never would have been a need to challenge such things as there was never any justification for them in the first place.
That is unintelligible nonsense. As one specific rebuttal, contingency fees give good lawyers economic incentive to engage in representation for claims by people who otherwise could not afford access to justice.
No, it's a simple statement of the facts as they are. Explain, if you would, how I can get a good lawyer on contingency when I'm charged with a crime? There's no payoff to cover the fees. I get a public defender which means basically pot luck. There are very good lawyers in the public defender's office and very poor ones. I had the misfortune to need a public defender long ago when I got the shit beat out of me by some cops who then charged me with assault (when my foot hit one of their shins when they were running up to beat me on the head with their maglite when I was already cuffed and maced) destruction of property (when said flashlight no longer worked after impacting my cranium) and resisting arrest (when I was on the ground covering my head yelling "I'm not resisting arrest"). I had 2 witnesses who testified and all of those specifics were brought up in court and not refuted. I still lost because my lawyer had more fun making assinine arguments which while logically valid were ridiculous and pissed off the jury. I saw the moment at which I lost in the juror's faces when my lawyer was going off on his third such tangent. Had I been able to afford a decent lawyer at the time it would have been an open and shut case and then I might have been able to get a lawyer on contingency to sue the city, but without being able to afford a competent lawyer for the criminal trial that avenue was cut off.
Hell, OJ got away with murder solely due to his ability to afford a row of sleazy lawyers.
Without lawyers, you wouldn't have to consider what it would be like to live in this world- we still would.
However, once again yo
He knew it was a nutty position to take, so he explicitly stated that it was his client's position, not his.
However were he possessed of even the slightest hint of ethics he would have quit on the spot, called a press conference, told the public that the president was a traitor who intended to be a monarch, and that we needed to pull a Louis XVI to save the Republic.
But the fame and potential wealth he could get by defending a traitor outweighed any integrity that scumbag might once have had.
Ford's folly killed any hope of that leading to Reagan the terrorist supporting crack dealer and the Bush crime syndicate. Ever increasing crimes against the nation and never any punishment. It must be good to be the king.
That, in a nutshell, is the problem with our country.
In my opinion, it's the judge's job to see through the big words and recognize a ludicrous case for what it is.
But it doesn't even get to the judge (generally) until a lawyer has taken it on, made up arguments to sell it etc.
The judge has ultimate responsibility while the lawyer is already on the clock, having completely rejected his (assuming an actual ludicrous case here) responsibility to the law in favor of the dollar.
All you're doing is basically the same thing as the religious and the Dem/Rep big government Nanny/Nazi state types do. Push the responsibility uphill until it gets big enough to roll down on your head.
Hot tip, in most conflicts, both sides are wrong. In the case of stupid laws, prosecutions, or defenses, the Judge is wrong for allowing it and the lawyer is wrong for taking the case.
Ok now we know that the MAAFIA (RIAA/MPAA) is in bed with MTV and Time/Warner/AOL/Turner House of Pancakes running MTV are looney ultra-left-wing Liberals working for Hollywood and Record Companies who bribe them to play the same 12 videos over and over again each day to promote their sales.
No, that would be the far right wing. Not at all left wing, certainly not "ultra" and not at all "Liberal".
That's straight up Fascist bullshit like Reagan and Hitler.
Still big government, but way the fuck over to the other side of that.
You're noticing the relatively trivial fact that those corporations own the Democratic party in particular as opposed to the Republican party while ignoring the important fact that corporations own your government. That's Fascism.
Pull your head out of your ass and learn to think, not just repeat shit you heard the guy raping your ass say.
Lawyers don't cause litigation. Parties cause litigation.
Lawyers, however, enable litigation. In fact, for some lawyers, that *is* their business. You can talk in abstractions all you like, but the main difference between mathematicians and lawyers is that the mathematician's love for bizarre, pedantic arguments stays in the ivory towers. Lawyers do the same thing having massively damaging affects on the real world. Sure, some douche hired a lawyer to push some ludicrous case, and he's a douche. No argument there, but when a lawyer who's good enough at his trade argues a bullshit case convincingly that can change the way the law is applied to everyone in incredibly destructive ways. Take the mockery that's been made of the interstate commerce clause alone. Bad lawyers doing bad things that has cost the country incalculable amounts of money, integrity and damn near anything else you'd care to mention.
On the whole, reasonable, intelligent parties = no ligitation = no lawyers.
But your calculation is incomplete. Why aren't the ridiculous cases refused? Because while *you* might possess ethics, there are plenty of people who don't. Some of those people are lawyers. So even if the rest of the people were sane and decent, the sleazebag lawyers would be chasing those ambulances and working to convince the weak willed and stupid that they're owed. That's how they make a living, after all.
They also would work to arrange new ways of creating conflicts. That's just basic common sense, coupled with a society which puts profit above all and in which buying the better lawyer buys the better "justice".
A local radio station (northern NH) bleeps out the the words "white boy" after "Play that funky music...."
Wait, New Hampshire?!? "Live free or die"
If that station isn't burned to the ground tomorrow, shouldn't everyone there shoot themselves in the face in a fit of integrity?