THE "TEA PARTY" IS DEAD AND BURIED!

[Reading The Leaves]

In the post-game analysis there is speculation that Romney's defeat
will mark the end of the Tea Party, given the damage it did to his
mainstream appeal.

And there will be a temptation to write off the whole thing as
idiotic.

An idiotic organization consisting of idiotic fools who did more
damage to the Republican party than good.

PACK YOUR BAGS TEA PARTYERS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

TAKE THAT STUPID FECESHEAD WORMEY WORMSHITTER WITH YOU!

[irie.mo...@gmail.com]

Tell cantor that.

[Technobarbarian]

<irie.mo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c3556a44-0b24-4872...@googlegroups.com...
> Tell cantor that.

Maybe--maybe not:

<http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/06/10/did-democrats-put-him-over-the-edge/>

TB

[Bruce]

Yeah that's a surprise - a socialist looking for the silver lining of
seeing a conservative beat the establishment Republican candidate.

--
Bruce

"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force." - George
Washington

[Technobarbarian]

"Bruce" <bruce...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ln9rbl$lb7$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 6/11/2014 7:43 AM, Technobarbarian wrote:
>>
>>
>> <irie.mo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:c3556a44-0b24-4872...@googlegroups.com...
>>> Tell cantor that.
>>
>> Maybe--maybe not:
>>
>> <http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/06/10/did-democrats-put-him-over-the-edge/>
>>
>>
>> TB
>
> Yeah that's a surprise - a socialist looking for the silver lining of
> seeing a conservative beat the establishment Republican candidate.

I wouldn't exactly call it a silver lining. Likely Brats will win the
election. His opponent was considered a token sacrifice until now. I had to
do more than the usual amount of digging just find his name. But, this
interpretation would also fit well with other primary results as well as the
polling results I noted in another post.. When it suits you you've
complained about Democrats/Liberals voting across party lines yourself.
Personally I like that this has probably killed "immigration reform"
regardless of whatever interpretation this election is given. I've read one
pundit who says this probably kills it until the first two years of
Hillary's second term. Haw...................haw.................... HAW
The multiple layers of irony are a hoot.

TB

[Bruce]

You wrote: "When it suits you you've complained about
Democrats/Liberals voting across party lines." When it suits me??? I
am ALWAYS opposed to ANYONE (not just liberals) voting across party
lines in primary elections. If it was up to me, primaries would be even
more closed. I don't want even a little bit of crossover - I want two
clearly separate parties - each of which stands, unequivocally for
something different than the other. As it is today, we have socialist
and socialist lite - that is why I am not a part of either. And it is
why I applaud the nomination of a real conservative - who just happens
to be an economics professor and just might have a realistic idea of how
to improve our economy.

By the way - as to immigration reform, I would totally be an open
borders person if we were able to shut down ALL government giveaways.
No welfare, no food stamps, no housing assistance, no free medical, no
free education; absolutely no government money given to anyone. At that
point, the absolute best thing we could do (from an economic standpoint)
would be totally open borders, and I would support the idea completely.

[Technobarbarian]

"Bruce" <bruce...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:ln9tf8$5ql$1...@dont-email.me...

>
> By the way - as to immigration reform, I would totally be an open borders
> person if we were able to shut down ALL government giveaways. No welfare,
> no food stamps, no housing assistance, no free medical, no free education;
> absolutely no government money given to anyone. At that point, the
> absolute best thing we could do (from an economic standpoint) would be
> totally open borders, and I would support the idea completely.

I wouldn't mind an open border with Mexico so much if it worked both
ways. We'd quickly own so much of Mexico that it would soon be a moot point.
Mexico appears to recognize this problem which is why I don't expect them to
open their border to us in my lifetime, if ever. Open borders with the whole
world is about the most ruinous idea I can imagine.

TB

[nothermark]

On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 08:07:29 -0700, Bruce <bruce...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 6/11/2014 7:43 AM, Technobarbarian wrote:
>>
>>
>> <irie.mo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:c3556a44-0b24-4872...@googlegroups.com...
>>> Tell cantor that.
>>
>> Maybe--maybe not:
>>
>> <http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/06/10/did-democrats-put-him-over-the-edge/>
>>
>>
>> TB
>
>Yeah that's a surprise - a socialist looking for the silver lining of
>seeing a conservative beat the establishment Republican candidate.

If he is pro gun and economically educated he can't be all bad. Puts
him ahead of all the lawyers. ;-)

[Technobarbarian]

"nothermark" <nothe...@not.here> wrote in message
news:9h2hp9hotovc5oig5...@4ax.com...

> If he is pro gun and economically educated he can't be all bad. Puts
> him ahead of all the lawyers. ;-)

So OK, now I have to ask. Where does your obsession with lawyers
come from? Of the stuff I read lately it seems like the majority of your
posts have mentioned lawyers--even when it was a major stretch on a wild
tangent.

TB

[Bruce]

He's a professor of economics so I suspect he is "economically
educated." I haven't seen anything as to his economic leanings, but
since he is a conservative, I doubt he is a Keynesian. Austrian might
be too much to hope for, but Chicago School might be a realistic
possibility.

[Technobarbarian]

"Bruce" <bruce...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:ln9tf8$5ql$1...@dont-email.me...

Yes, but you have used cross party voting as an explanation for
election results--even when no evidence for it existed--if you thought it
helped your argument.

It should be obvious that there isn't much evidence for this in this
particular election--so far. At this point I think it's just an interesting
hypothesis with some plausible rationale behind it . I'll bet we see a
flurry of polling to try to figure out what happened and cross party voting
is likely to be one of the issues examined.

TB

[nothermark]

On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 11:18:29 -0700, Bruce <bruce...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On 6/11/2014 9:57 AM, nothermark wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 08:07:29 -0700, Bruce <bruce...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/11/2014 7:43 AM, Technobarbarian wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <irie.mo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:c3556a44-0b24-4872...@googlegroups.com...
>>>>> Tell cantor that.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe--maybe not:
>>>>
>>>> <http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/06/10/did-democrats-put-him-over-the-edge/>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> TB
>>>
>>> Yeah that's a surprise - a socialist looking for the silver lining of
>>> seeing a conservative beat the establishment Republican candidate.
>>
>> If he is pro gun and economically educated he can't be all bad. Puts
>> him ahead of all the lawyers. ;-)
>
>He's a professor of economics so I suspect he is "economically
>educated." I haven't seen anything as to his economic leanings, but
>since he is a conservative, I doubt he is a Keynesian. Austrian might
>be too much to hope for, but Chicago School might be a realistic
>possibility.

More to the point he expects 1+1 to equal 2 instead of whatever he can
convince a jury it should be.

[Bruce]

Did you simply not understand what I wrote, or are you intentionally
misrepresenting my comment? Let me repeat myself: "I am ALWAYS opposed

to ANYONE (not just liberals) voting across party lines in primary

elections." And despite your protestations to the idea, it is my
opinion that such cross party voting HAS had an effect on election results.

> It should be obvious that there isn't much evidence for this in
> this particular election--so far. At this point I think it's just an
> interesting hypothesis with some plausible rationale behind it . I'll
> bet we see a flurry of polling to try to figure out what happened and
> cross party voting is likely to be one of the issues examined.
>
> TB

Early analysis suggests that neither cross party voting nor immigration
had any impact on this election. From what I have heard, the biggest
factor seems to be that Cantor did not take his opponent seriously and
did not campaign enough. In fact he was not even in Virginia yesterday
- he was out of state at a fundraiser for someone else. It seems that
Virginians might want someone who cares about them.

[Bruce]

On 6/11/2014 9:00 AM, Technobarbarian wrote:

> Open borders with the whole world is about the most ruinous idea I
> can imagine.
>
> TB

Is that because you don't understand economics or because of our
government's current fascination with bankrupting the country by giving
away the bank?

--
Bruce

Obama to Israel - You have no right to your borders.
Obama to Ukraine - You have every right to your borders.
Obama to USA - You have no borders.

[nothermark]

I would not say I was obsessed. I think the postings you are
referring to involved legal matters so mentioning Lawyers, Courts, and
their activities are part of the picture.

Overall IMHO Attorney's are a mixed blessing. If you look at their
job it is to represent the interests of their client in as best a
manner as they can do it. That does not necessarily represent their
personal beliefs so it is irrational to complain about how they do
their job. Given the structure of our legal system it is often worth
factoring in likely processes in any decision that involves them. I
have seen more than one divorce turn ugly when a lawyer made a claim
over custody or property divisions that had already been worked out by
the two parties but one of the Attorney's decided to ask for something
because it was the ethical thing to do even though the party
represented had agreed not to take it.

Another example is the GM bankruptcy. If GM had been forced into a
dissolution bankruptcy by it's suppliers the management would have had
a personal interest in prolonging it as long as possible to protect
their income stream. That would mean directing their attorney's to do
that. The net result would have been as I described it. No money
left for the creditors because of fat retention bonus's for some of
the management and high legal fee's to do it. The government short
circuited that by promising management the company would continue on
so minimal job loss and no panic to draw things out. I just pointed
out what the legal job function was. AFAIK the bulk of the people
hurt were existing legal claims, their attorney's (contingency fee),
and some preferred stock holders who thought they could not lose in
the stock market. As I understand it they would all have been screwed
anyway as the money that could be recovered was eaten up in the
protracted litigation.

In the case of any elected member of any legislative body they have a
vested interest in making laws they or their brethren can then profit
from later. Attorney's also have a different view of physical laws.
They seem to think they are mutable. If I had my way no more than
half of any legislative body would be in the legal profession just to
keep some balance and representation by other views.

If you have an example of somewhere where you think there is a wild
tangent to involve the legal profession in the outcome please point it
out and I will make the connection.

[Technobarbarian]

"nothermark" <nothe...@not.here> wrote in message

news:218hp9hikjjem9vk1...@4ax.com...

> I would not say I was obsessed. I think the postings you are
> referring to involved legal matters so mentioning Lawyers, Courts, and
> their activities are part of the picture.

LOL Now I'm sorry I asked. I'm sorry, but I didn't get to the bottom of
that one. I should have known better.

TB

[nothermark]

Give me some examples.

[Technobarbarian]

"nothermark" <nothe...@not.here> wrote in message

news:l1ghp91samv6p97i7...@4ax.com...

The one that quickly comes to mind was the Bergdahl lawsuit. I know
this made sense to you, but................................

TB

[Bruce]

Well, if he expects 1+1 to equal 2 we know for sure that he is not a
Keynesian.

[Jenny6833A]

On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 12:19:24 PM UTC-7, nothermark wrote:

> Overall IMHO Attorney's are a mixed blessing. If you look at their
>
> job it is to represent the interests of their client in as best a
>
> manner as they can do it. That does not necessarily represent their
>
> personal beliefs so it is irrational to complain about how they do
>
> their job.

You're incredibly naive. Attorneys (no possessive) often deliberately, maliciously throw cases for various reasons such as 1) because they have a religious disagreement with their client, 2) because vigorously defending an unpopular person would cause repercussions from judges and other attorneys, or 3) because they think (correctly) that other clients would boycott them.

Attorneys conduct their business to make money. They'll screw one client (and demand their fee) in order to keep the money flowing in from others.

:-)

Jenny

[Lone Haranguer]

You're talking about lawyers who are liberals, right?

LZ

[nothermark]

On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 13:49:21 -0700, "Technobarbarian"

<Technobarbar...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>"nothermark" <nothe...@not.here> wrote in message
>news:l1ghp91samv6p97i7...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 12:25:16 -0700, "Technobarbarian"
>> <Technobarbar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"nothermark" <nothe...@not.here> wrote in message
>>>news:218hp9hikjjem9vk1...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>> I would not say I was obsessed. I think the postings you are
>>>> referring to involved legal matters so mentioning Lawyers, Courts, and
>>>> their activities are part of the picture.
>>>
>>> LOL Now I'm sorry I asked. I'm sorry, but I didn't get to the bottom
>>> of
>>>that one. I should have known better.
>>>
>>>TB
>>
>> Give me some examples.
>
> The one that quickly comes to mind was the Bergdahl lawsuit. I know
>this made sense to you, but................................
>
>TB

OK. It was speculation. From my perspective Son of Sam laws and
civil suites over wrongful death when the person was not found guilty
in a murder trial are wrong. I see them as fairly recent aberrations
to out traditions against double jeopardy. Unfortunately they exist.

When I wrote that I was watching a news clip of the parents of one of
the soldiers killed during the hunt for Bergdahl. Given the vitriol I
saw there it was not hard to see some bright money grubbing attorney
trying to extend civil responsibility further by suing for a chunk of
the proceeds of any book or movie produced with Berdahl's name
attached.

The real issue is that there would be a pot of money there that is up
for grabs. The dark side of the legal business is we have a lot of
hungry attorneys out there who need money to eat regularly. They
control the legal system. Their view is that everything in question
should be litigated and if that eats up 80 or 100% of the proceeds
that is the cost of doing business. No bet on the outcome.

[nothermark]

On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 15:22:18 -0700, Bruce <bruce...@gmail.com>

Unlike lawyers even Keynesians understand 1+1=2. Their problem is
that they add a multiplier for proper spending. They ignore that a
similar reverse multiplier exists for using the money to pay off debts
incurred by spending while our government just ignores their debts.

FWIW the multiplier effect is well known. The problem is governmental
lack of responsibility.

[Technobarbarian]

"nothermark" <nothe...@not.here> wrote in message

news:nfajp95jlvs1d36m6...@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 13:49:21 -0700, "Technobarbarian"
> <Technobarbar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"nothermark" <nothe...@not.here> wrote in message
>>news:l1ghp91samv6p97i7...@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 12:25:16 -0700, "Technobarbarian"
>>> <Technobarbar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"nothermark" <nothe...@not.here> wrote in message
>>>>news:218hp9hikjjem9vk1...@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>> I would not say I was obsessed. I think the postings you are
>>>>> referring to involved legal matters so mentioning Lawyers, Courts, and
>>>>> their activities are part of the picture.
>>>>
>>>> LOL Now I'm sorry I asked. I'm sorry, but I didn't get to the bottom
>>>> of
>>>>that one. I should have known better.
>>>>
>>>>TB
>>>
>>> Give me some examples.
>>
>> The one that quickly comes to mind was the Bergdahl lawsuit. I know
>>this made sense to you, but................................
>>
>>TB
>
> OK. It was speculation.

Again, really, I'm sorry I asked. And if you think I'm reading a long
winded explanation you're even nuttier than I had you figured for. All these
word do is make me wonder in what ways you feel you've been screwed over by
lawyers and how often. THIS IS NOT A QUESTION! I've already read more than
enough on this subject.

TB

TB

[nothermark]

Since I have been screwed by two or 3 attorneys you are preaching to
the choir. What I gave was the official version. I will say that
there are attorneys who more or less meet the criteria as that is
their training. Unfortunately not screwing the incompetent attorney
is also part of their training.

[Technobarbarian]

"nothermark" <nothe...@not.here> wrote in message

news:p1djp95id06coepp7...@4ax.com...

> Since I have been screwed by two or 3 attorneys you are preaching to
> the choir. What I gave was the official version. I will say that
> there are attorneys who more or less meet the criteria as that is
> their training. Unfortunately not screwing the incompetent attorney
> is also part of their training.

This is the answer I was looking for in the first place. Not yakkity,
yak, yak, bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, on and on.

"nothermark" <nothe...@not.here> wrote in message

news:218hp9hikjjem9vk1...@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 11:09:04 -0700, "Technobarbarian"

>> So OK, now I have to ask. Where does your obsession with lawyers
>>come from? Of the stuff I read lately it seems like the majority of your
>>posts have mentioned lawyers--even when it was a major stretch on a wild
>>tangent.
>>
>>TB
>
> I would not say I was obsessed. I think the postings you are
> referring to involved legal matters so mentioning Lawyers, Courts, and
> their activities are part of the picture.

No you, you're not obsessed--much. You just go on about lawyers a lot
because they're relevant to everything. LOL

TB

[George Anthony]

"nothermark" <nothe...@not.here> wrote in message

news:p1djp95id06coepp7...@4ax.com...

If I had been screwed by attorneys, I can guarantee you I would know if the
number was either two or three. You liberals have a such a hard time with
honest numbers you just make up something to suit our agendas.

[George Anthony]

"George Anthony" <gant...@gmail.org> wrote in message
news:lncf2i$e0k$1...@dont-email.me...

That, of course, would be "your" agendas.

[Vito]

"Jenny6833A" <Jenny...@aol.com> wrote

Passing a crypt labled "Here lies a fine lawyer and an honest man" one wag
commented "Wonder how they got two people in one small crypt."

[Lone Haranguer]

Our #1 son is an attorney and is in great demand because of his
reputation. He's not a criminal defense lawyer but specializes
in real estate law, trusts and wills.

LZ

[Jenny6833A]

No, not in the cases I'm personally familiar with.

They were all nutcase fundy right-wing Christians, the kind who lie, cheat, and steal for Jesus.

[Technobarbarian]

"George Anthony" <gant...@gmail.org> wrote in message

news:lncf8e$fcc$1...@dont-email.me...

Likely he knows the number, but isn't sure what happened on one or
more occasions. He sounds like someone who has had too much faith in
experts. Lawyers are like everyone else. There are good ones and bad ones
and a lot of people somewhere in between. The good ones tend to cost more.

My Sister was a legal secretary for Judges for many years. She was
always surprised by the things lawyers didn't know. She got calls all the
time asking her what they should do next.

I've encountered countless people on Usenet who claimed to be
lawyers. Likely most of them were. I could easily count the ones who could
actually demonstrate a working knowledge of the law with their words on the
fingers on one hand. In fact all the Usenet experts are like that. We've
had/have all sorts of self-proclaimed experts on this group in just about
any field you can think of. You could probably count the ones who could
demonstrate a reasonable grasp of their specialty without taking your shoes
off.

TB

[Jenny6833A]

Good one or bad ones isn't the point. Certainly not the point I made.

There are good ones and bad ones who are honest and ethical, and there are good ones and bad ones who are not.

I had a lawyer who listened to my summary of a case, and say they didn't want to represent me or my group. That's his right. But when he then called the opposition and told them everything I said, he was being being dishonest and unethical.

On another occasion, an attorney took a case, spent several hours going over our presentation of the facts, supposedly read about 30 pages of additional detail we'd provided. We also gave him a list of about 25 willing witnesses. He used none of it at trial, and put up no other defense. He thought we "deserved" to be punished, no matter what had really happend and no matter what the law said.

On a third occasion, I hired an attorney to negotiate a settlement. I outlined five possible agreements from the one I wanted to, at the other exteme, the highly unsatisfactory one we would very reluctantly accept. He called the opposition, and without any negotiation at all, offered them the worst of the bunch.

And that's the way it goes in the finest legal system the world has ever known!

Jenny

[Hank]

On Thursday, June 12, 2014 6:13:36 PM UTC-4, Lone Haranguer wrote:

> Vito wrote:

> >
>
> > Passing a crypt labled "Here lies a fine lawyer and an honest man" one wag
>
> > commented "Wonder how they got two people in one small crypt."
>> >
>
> Our #1 son is an attorney and is in great demand because of his
>
> reputation. He's not a criminal defense lawyer but specializes
>
> in real estate law, trusts and wills.

>
> LZ

And your point is what?

Hank

[nothermark]

On Fri, 13 Jun 2014 02:47:44 -0700 (PDT), Hank <nineb...@aol.com>
wrote:

My thought given some real estate deals I have seen. Trusts and Wills
can get even worse.

[Technobarbarian]

"Jenny6833A" <Jenny...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:69da91fa-9ffb-44d5...@googlegroups.com...

> There are good ones and bad ones who are honest and ethical, and there are
> good ones and bad ones who are not.
>
> I had a lawyer who listened to my summary of a case, and say they didn't
> want to represent me or my group. That's his right. But when he then
> called the opposition and told them everything I said, he was being being
> dishonest and unethical.

Ah yes, the systemic problems. You discovered the hard way that
there's a lot of mutual back scratching that goes on behind the scenes. I
don't know what we could do to stop this or work around it. I've found that
for small problems I'm better off if I represent myself. I once had a Judge
tell me I should have been a lawyer. I'm not sure if he intended that as a
compliment or an insult. I suspect it was both.

This reminds me of a lawyer who worked in the small town I grew up in
back when I was a kid. No one had any respect for him. He was down to taking
any client who walked through the door.
My Dad was on the Planning Commission. The lawyer had a client who was
trying to get a zoning variance that he had no realistic hope of getting.
IIRC at least one lawyer had told him it was hopeless and turned him away.
The lawyer asked them to "let the client down easy" when they said no.

TB

[Lone Haranguer]

There are honest lawyers as well as crooked ones.

LZ

[Jenny6833A]

On Friday, June 13, 2014 6:39:06 AM UTC-7, Technobarbarian wrote:
> "Jenny6833A" <Jenny...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:69da91fa-9ffb-44d5...@googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > There are good ones and bad ones who are honest and ethical, and there are
>
> > good ones and bad ones who are not.
>
> >
>
> > I had a lawyer who listened to my summary of a case, and say they didn't
>
> > want to represent me or my group. That's his right. But when he then
>
> > called the opposition and told them everything I said, he was being being
>
> > dishonest and unethical.
>
>
>
> Ah yes, the systemic problems. You discovered the hard way that
>
> there's a lot of mutual back scratching that goes on behind the scenes. I
>
> don't know what we could do to stop this or work around it.

This, and the other examples I mentioned, weren't mutual back scratching. They were about putting their personal/social/religious views ahead of their professional ethics. They were concrete examples of "Liars for Jesus."

Those transgressions ARE fixable. Well publicized reprimands, license suspensions, and the occasional disbarment would do the trick. But those don't happen in their little closed society.

In the state where my examples occurred, at the time they occurred, one could with some difficulty check out a lawyer for reprimands and suspensions. We learned to do that, and did it. Guess what? The bar association changed their policy such that the info was not available to the public.

One can, for example, check out a plumber via the BBB, Angies List, and various other sources. Can't do that with lawyers -- at least one can't where I was from.

[Lone Haranguer]

Jenny6833A wrote:
> This, and the other examples I mentioned, weren't mutual back
> scratching. They were about putting their
> personal/social/religious views ahead of their professional
> ethics. They were concrete examples of "Liars for Jesus."

How did Jesus get involved when you lost your court battles?

Because the lawyers were Christians?

"Christianity is the most popular religion in the United States"

"The United States has the largest Christian population in the
world, with nearly 247 million Christians."
****************

Looks like you will have to consult Angie's List for a
non-Christian lawyer.

LZ

[Hank]

On Friday, June 13, 2014 9:44:07 AM UTC-4, Lone Haranguer wrote:

> >> Our #1 son is an attorney and is in great demand because of his
>
> >>
>
> >> reputation. He's not a criminal defense lawyer but specializes
>
> >>
>
> >> in real estate law, trusts and wills.
>
> >
>
> >>
>
> >> LZ
>
> >
>
> > And your point is what?
>
> >
>
> > Hank
>
> >
>
> There are honest lawyers as well as crooked ones.
>
>
>
> LZ

Isn't it always the crooked ones who are sought out? :-)

Hank

[Lone Haranguer]

If they are criminal defense lawyers, yes. Real estate lawyers
get hired to save people from being taken advantage of or
interpret zoning laws.

LZ

[Jenny6833A]

On Friday, June 13, 2014 1:35:59 PM UTC-7, Lone Haranguer wrote:
> Jenny6833A wrote:
>
> > This, and the other examples I mentioned, weren't mutual back
>
> > scratching. They were about putting their
>
> > personal/social/religious views ahead of their professional
>
> > ethics. They were concrete examples of "Liars for Jesus."
>
>
>
> How did Jesus get involved when you lost your court battles?

Of the three I mentioned, we won two and the other was a tie. There were no losses.

> Because the lawyers were Christians?

The lawyers we eventually settled on were honest. Their religion, if any, was irrelevant.

> "Christianity is the most popular religion in the United States"

Irrelevant

> "The United States has the largest Christian population in the
>
> world, with nearly 247 million Christians."

Also irrelevant.

We're talking about lawyers who violate legal ethics. It's simply a fact that some who do so are motivated by personal/social/religious factors -- which doesn't change the fact that they violated legal ethics.

> Looks like you will have to consult Angie's List for a
> non-Christian lawyer.

The lawyer who did by far the best job for us was Christian. And gay. He wasn't a nudist, but understood what we were up against because he personally had faced the same kind of irrational crap for many years. As a result, he was highly motivated and did a super job.

Some Christians are honest. Some aren't. Of those who aren't, some are motivated to be dishonest by their Christianity.

Duh!

Jenny

[Bruce]

So, your screed against Christian lawyers was simple prejudice, not
related to any actual experience.

[Lone Haranguer]

Jenny6833A wrote:
> On Friday, June 13, 2014 1:35:59 PM UTC-7, Lone Haranguer
> wrote:
>> Jenny6833A wrote:
>>
>>> This, and the other examples I mentioned, weren't mutual
>>> back
>>
>>> scratching. They were about putting their
>>
>>> personal/social/religious views ahead of their
>>> professional
>>
>>> ethics. They were concrete examples of "Liars for Jesus."
>>
>>
>>
>> How did Jesus get involved when you lost your court
>> battles?
>
> Of the three I mentioned, we won two and the other was a tie.
> There were no losses.

So why is Jesus involved?

>
>> Because the lawyers were Christians?
>
> The lawyers we eventually settled on were honest. Their
> religion, if any, was irrelevant.

They weren't Christians? Then what were they?

>
>> "Christianity is the most popular religion in the United
>> States"
>
> Irrelevant

If the lawyers you settled on were Christians then they were
"winners for Jesus" right? Why didn't you mention that?

>
>> "The United States has the largest Christian population in
>> the
>>
>> world, with nearly 247 million Christians."
>
> Also irrelevant.
>
> We're talking about lawyers who violate legal ethics. It's
> simply a fact that some who do so are motivated by
> personal/social/religious factors -- which doesn't change the
> fact that they violated legal ethics.

So YOU say. Why did you involve Jesus because YOU chose shyster
lawyers?

>
>> Looks like you will have to consult Angie's List for a
>> non-Christian lawyer.
>
> The lawyer who did by far the best job for us was Christian.
> And gay. He wasn't a nudist, but understood what we were up
> against because he personally had faced the same kind of
> irrational crap for many years. As a result, he was highly
> motivated and did a super job.
>
> Some Christians are honest. Some aren't. Of those who aren't,
> some are motivated to be dishonest by their Christianity.

Prove that statement.
>
> Duh!
>
> Jenny
>
*I* think you've reached the bullshit saturation point. Pretty
desperate to blame Christianity as the reason for choosing a poor
lawyer while commending another Christian for doing a good job.

LZ

[Jenny6833A]

Bruce:
I've carefully re-read everything I wrote on the topic. I find nothing that, even with malicious misreading, could justify your comment.

[Jenny6833A]

On Saturday, June 14, 2014 1:43:25 PM UTC-7, Lone Haranguer wrote:
> Jenny6833A wrote:
>
> > On Friday, June 13, 2014 1:35:59 PM UTC-7, Lone Haranguer
>
> > wrote:
>
> >> Jenny6833A wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> This, and the other examples I mentioned, weren't mutual
>
> >>> back
>
> >>
>
> >>> scratching. They were about putting their
>
> >>
>
> >>> personal/social/religious views ahead of their
>
> >>> professional
>
> >>
>
> >>> ethics. They were concrete examples of "Liars for Jesus."
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> How did Jesus get involved when you lost your court
>
> >> battles?
>
> >
>
> > Of the three I mentioned, we won two and the other was a tie.
>
> > There were no losses.
>
>
>
> So why is Jesus involved?

Because, in each case, we were screwed by unethical lawyers before we found an honest one. In all three cases, the unethical lawyers were Christian. In two of the three cases of unethical lawyers,

> >
>
> >> Because the lawyers were Christians?
>
> >
>
> > The lawyers we eventually settled on were honest. Their
>
> > religion, if any, was irrelevant.
>
>
>
> They weren't Christians? Then what were they?

Two of the three were Christian. In one case, we didn't know.

>
> >> "Christianity is the most popular religion in the United
>
> >> States"
>
> >
>
> > Irrelevant
>
>
>
> If the lawyers you settled on were Christians then they were
>
> "winners for Jesus" right? Why didn't you mention that?

I assume that lawyers are honest. When in fact they are, their religion is irrelevant. If they aren't, I seek answers as to why.

>
> >> "The United States has the largest Christian population in
>
> >> the
>
> >>
>
> >> world, with nearly 247 million Christians."
>
> >
>
> > Also irrelevant.
>
> >
>
> > We're talking about lawyers who violate legal ethics. It's
>
> > simply a fact that some who do so are motivated by
>
> > personal/social/religious factors -- which doesn't change the
>
> > fact that they violated legal ethics.
>
>
>
> So YOU say. Why did you involve Jesus because YOU chose shyster
>
> lawyers?

I'm not good at figuring out who is/isn't honest during a half-hour meeting. Dishonesty isn't knowable until after a dishonest act has been committed.

> >
>
> >> Looks like you will have to consult Angie's List for a
>
> >> non-Christian lawyer.
>
> >
>
> > The lawyer who did by far the best job for us was Christian.
>
> > And gay. He wasn't a nudist, but understood what we were up
>
> > against because he personally had faced the same kind of
>
> > irrational crap for many years. As a result, he was highly
>
> > motivated and did a super job.

I should have mentioned here that the irrational crap he'd faced over many years came 99% from Christians.

> > Some Christians are honest. Some aren't. Of those who aren't,
>
> > some are motivated to be dishonest by their Christianity.
>
>
>
> Prove that statement.

I don't need to. It's part of Roman Catholic dogma or whatever they call it. Most other Xtian sects accet that too.

>
> *I* think you've reached the bullshit saturation point. Pretty
>
> desperate to blame Christianity as the reason for choosing a poor
>
> lawyer while commending another Christian for doing a good job.

I haven't said that any of them were poor lawyers. I've said they were dishonest, unethical lawyers and that in a couple of the cases their dishonesty was clearly motivated by support of their religion.

Pfffffffffffffffttttttttttt

Jenny

[Lone Haranguer]

And I've seen absolutely no reason to call your scummy lawyers
"liars for Jesus".

Our present administration can honestly be called "liars for
socialism" though and I can produce a boatload of evidence to
support the title.

LZ

[Lone Haranguer]

So Jesus is responsible for unethical lawyers?

With that knowledge, why didn't you choose a non-Christian
lawyer? Surely there must be a few among your wacko friends.

>>>
>>
>>>> Because the lawyers were Christians?
>>
>>>
>>
>>> The lawyers we eventually settled on were honest. Their
>>
>>> religion, if any, was irrelevant.
>>

Then religion among the shyster lawyers was irrelevant also.

>>
>>
>> They weren't Christians? Then what were they?
>
> Two of the three were Christian. In one case, we didn't know.
>
>>
>>>> "Christianity is the most popular religion in the
>>>> United
>>
>>>> States"
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Irrelevant
>>
>>
>>
>> If the lawyers you settled on were Christians then they
>> were
>>
>> "winners for Jesus" right? Why didn't you mention that?
>
> I assume that lawyers are honest. When in fact they are, their
> religion is irrelevant. If they aren't, I seek answers as to
> why.

You gave them polygraph tests?

>>
>>>> "The United States has the largest Christian population
>>>> in
>>
>>>> the
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> world, with nearly 247 million Christians."
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Also irrelevant.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> We're talking about lawyers who violate legal ethics.
>>> It's
>>
>>> simply a fact that some who do so are motivated by
>>
>>> personal/social/religious factors -- which doesn't change
>>> the
>>
>>> fact that they violated legal ethics.
>>
>>
>>
>> So YOU say. Why did you involve Jesus because YOU chose
>> shyster
>>
>> lawyers?
>
> I'm not good at figuring out who is/isn't honest during a
> half-hour meeting. Dishonesty isn't knowable until after a
> dishonest act has been committed.

Did you lodge a complaint with the State Bar Association?

>
>>>
>>
>>>> Looks like you will have to consult Angie's List for a
>>
>>>> non-Christian lawyer.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> The lawyer who did by far the best job for us was
>>> Christian.
>>
>>> And gay. He wasn't a nudist, but understood what we were
>>> up
>>
>>> against because he personally had faced the same kind of
>>
>>> irrational crap for many years. As a result, he was
>>> highly
>>
>>> motivated and did a super job.
>
> I should have mentioned here that the irrational crap he'd
> faced over many years came 99% from Christians.

See? The high number of Christians IS relevant after all.

>
>>> Some Christians are honest. Some aren't. Of those who
>>> aren't,
>>
>>> some are motivated to be dishonest by their Christianity.
>>
>>
>>
>> Prove that statement.
>
> I don't need to. It's part of Roman Catholic dogma or whatever
> they call it. Most other Xtian sects accet that too.

IOW you can't prove your assertions.

>
>
>>
>> *I* think you've reached the bullshit saturation point.
>> Pretty
>>
>> desperate to blame Christianity as the reason for choosing a
>> poor
>>
>> lawyer while commending another Christian for doing a good
>> job.
>
> I haven't said that any of them were poor lawyers. I've said
> they were dishonest, unethical lawyers and that in a couple of
> the cases their dishonesty was clearly motivated by support of
> their religion.

But that's only in your screwed-up "mind". It's just another
example of how bigoted you are.

LZ
>
> Pfffffffffffffffttttttttttt
>
> Jenny
>

[Jan Orme]

On Saturday, June 14, 2014 4:40:50 PM UTC-7, Jenny6833A wrote:
> On Saturday, June 14, 2014 1:43:25 PM UTC-7, Lone Haranguer wrote:
>
> > Jenny6833A wrote:

<SNIP>

>
>
> Pfffffffffffffffttttttttttt
>
> Jenny
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ah yes...Jenny's Dog Ma...with the name: Pfffffffffffffffttttttttttt

Cripes woman, at least learn how to SNIP! Better still, get a REAL Life!

Yes, I know you don't comprehend that.

Jan

In my many years, I have come to consider that
one useless man is a terrible shame, two is a law
firm and three or more is a Congress.

(Yes Jenny, I know there are many kinds os congress. Try it on your own self.)
GACK!

[Jan Orme]

On Thursday, June 12, 2014 6:48:07 AM UTC-7, nothermark wrote:

>
> >>> On 6/11/2014 9:57 AM, nothermark wrote:

> Unlike lawyers even Keynesians understand 1+1=2. Their problem is
>
> that they add a multiplier for proper spending. They ignore that a
>
> similar reverse multiplier exists for using the money to pay off debts
>
> incurred by spending while our government just ignores their debts.
>
> FWIW the multiplier effect is well known. The problem is governmental
>
> lack of responsibility.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In Response: DUH!

Dearest offthemark. Please attempt to trim your Long Ass Posts!

[Bruce]

Actually, 0bama is more fascist than socialist, but since fascism and
socialism are very close siblings, you are close enough.

[Vito]

"Jenny6833A" <Jenny...@aol.com> wrote

Lone Haranguer wrote:
> You're talking about lawyers who are liberals, right?

No, not in the cases I'm personally familiar with.

They were all nutcase fundy right-wing Christians, the kind who lie,
cheat, and steal for Jesus.

-------------------------
We call that kind "politicians".