Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

If I remember right it was 8 bucks to use the Airtrain and then only a couple bucks to use the subway and get the right connections. Way better than some cab that smells, is constantly arguing on the phone and rolls the windows down instead of A/C

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
13 minutes ago, StassneyHorn said:

If I remember right it was 8 bucks to use the Airtrain and then only a couple bucks to use the subway and get the right connections. Way better than some cab that smells, is constantly arguing on the phone and rolls the windows down instead of A/C

Yep. And in a car you’re looking at 45-90 minutes depending on traffic. The LIRR through Jamaica is a game changer and  takes the risk out of the trip. It’s 45-60 mins from midtown to the airport, period. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
1 minute ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Yep. And in a car you’re looking at 45-90 minutes depending on traffic. The LIRR through Jamaica is a game changer and  takes the risk out of the trip. It’s 45-60 mins from midtown to the airport, period. 

It's 45-60 mins from JFK to my house every time. Period. I usually have tons of bags.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Slight tweak- get your scannable  “MAGA Chip” so that ICE and DHS can quickly scan and identify you as a loyal citizen if you are accidentally taken into custody.

In addition to the tracking chip, it would also include a voucher to have your unique Saving America for Trump And Nation number tattooed on your right hand for visual confirmation at checkpoints.

I was thinking the chip, or "mark" if you will, could be provided by a new government organization called the Bureau of European Ancestry Substantiation and Tracking

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Rage+1 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Doctors think the same thing, which is why they support medmal caps. 

But I was talking about lawyers not vigorously disciplining members of their profession who choose to be a party to defrauding the court and choose to violate or fail  to uphold the law. 

It’s not an impossible task to enforce standards. It’s merely difficult. CPAs and other licensed and chartered professionals deal with these problems and police them aggressively. It is the “learned professions” of medicine and law that struggle with this.
Shady brokers pay heavy fines and often lose their livelihoods. Lawyers get gently chastened and keep working. 

If they actually defraud the court, there's usually a remedy, notwithstanding bad bar lawyering.  And those convicted of violating laws are routinely disbarred.

But then you resort to "upholding the law," whatever that means.

But anyway, you've been bitching about that for a decade or more, so that can't be the crisis in the profession.

 

Posted
6 hours ago, Irwin F Fletcher said:

When it comes to Trump they are repeatedly gargling the little button mushroom. So, no I don't think they'll stop him.

 

Fingers crossed the gift from Qatar doesn't have a remote kill switch to the engines. 

giphy.gif?cid=6c09b952rjw0f9jhfg4czzc4dz

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 1
Posted
1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

If they actually defraud the court, there's usually a remedy

Is there? My premise is that when the richest and most powerful clients or most prestigious and powerful firms are involved, there isn’t, “usually.”

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

But then you resort to "upholding the law," whatever that means.

That you think that’s meaningless is an interesting (and revealing point), but would you say lawyers have an individual duty to uphold legal process?

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

But anyway, you've been bitching about that for a decade or more, so that can't be the crisis in the profession.

Can’t it? What’s the maximum time allowed for a crisis to unfold, counselor?
 

Posted
3 hours ago, StassneyHorn said:

If I remember right it was 8 bucks to use the Airtrain and then only a couple bucks to use the subway and get the right connections. Way better than some cab that smells, is constantly arguing on the phone and rolls the windows down instead of A/C

I always used to tell tourists to take the subway to the AirTrain to avoid paying for the overpriced cabs and Ubers if time wasn’t a factor for them. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, Derka said:

realistically, what does this mean?

 

Nothing, absolutely nothing. It’s propaganda to keep the cult happy. TFG will be pocketing some money on this somehow, but Americans won’t see any benefit. It’s kinda how he has operated for his entire adult life. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Derka said:

realistically, what does this mean?

 

To you and me? It means absolutely nothing.

It's nothing but agonal breathing. Desperation. Mashing buttons hoping to course correct from this historic nosedive in approval.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

I should add @Derka that this is how a fascist regime works. You constantly feed your cult new and exciting ways you have improved their lives. You do it over and over and over. People outside the cult can see our lives are not improving monetarily or otherwise, but a cult member only hears or reads the words of their leader and believes them. This is the part where he is really revving up the cult while he is busy lining his own pockets with our money as well as companies, or countries in the case of Qatar, to stay on his good side.

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Posted
17 minutes ago, Derka said:

realistically, what does this mean?

 

My guess? He's going to ensure that pharmaceutical prices around the world are elevated so that a) American prices are the lowest (in spite of not changing), b) 'those people' will be deprived affordable medications, and c) his donors in the drug industry will continue to profit 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Rage+1 2
Posted
20 minutes ago, UpperWestside said:

I always used to tell tourists to take the subway to the AirTrain to avoid paying for the overpriced cabs and Ubers if time wasn’t a factor for them. 

You a real one 

  • Haha 1
Posted
3 hours ago, ABZ said:

I was thinking the chip, or "mark" if you will, could be provided by a new government organization called the Bureau of European Ancestry Substantiation and Tracking

image.thumb.jpeg.fb2b0a0a2e1c595bf8bbb4675ab65841.jpeg

Posted
10 hours ago, HenryJames said:

 

 

10 hours ago, Chad Fuck said:


The world would be better off if Roger Stone got a little taste of his own medicine.
More blatant in your face corruption.


Not that he really ‘tried’ all that hard to hide it, but between this, the tech / media / law firm buy offs, and the meme coin pay offs this is getting to the ‘no fucks given’ kind of corruption. 

There truly is no rock bottom with this man or the party that backs him.

The kicker is having to listen to my FIL bitch about tariffs and politics at MIL brunch while not attributing it to Republicans and never assigning the blame to the God king he’s voted for 3 times.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 2
Posted
35 minutes ago, Dnaguy said:

 


Not that he really ‘tried’ all that hard to hide it, but between this, the tech / media / law firm buy offs, and the meme coin pay offs this is getting to the ‘no fucks given’ kind of corruption. 

There truly is no rock bottom with this man or the party that backs him.

The kicker is having to listen to my FIL bitch about tariffs and politics at MIL brunch while not attributing it to Republicans and never assigning the blame to the God king he’s voted for 3 times.

Your restraint is something.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
realistically, what does this mean?
 

Nothing, absolutely nothing. It’s propaganda to keep the cult happy. TFG will be pocketing some money on this somehow, but Americans won’t see any benefit. It’s kinda how he has operated for his entire adult life. 

My guess? He's going to ensure that pharmaceutical prices around the world are elevated so that a) American prices are the lowest (in spite of not changing), b) 'those people' will be deprived affordable medications, and c) his donors in the drug industry will continue to profit 

NW gets it. What will happen will be a perfect combo of a) not much, b) some drugs will go way up in price around the world (killing people elsewhere), but wont come down a penny here, and c) some drugs will become unavailable here (because the company simply can’t sell it for the same price they charge elsewhere), harming/killing Americans.
Everything he does hurts people. It never helps people. Because his understanding of economics is on par with Greg Davis’s understanding of how to use DJ Monroe.
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
  • Rage+1 3
Posted
[mention=593]Brisketexan[/mention]
Si usted es capaz de sentir indignacion por las injusticias cometidas por todo el miundo, somos companeros.

No puedo hablar por [mention=593]Brisketexan[/mention] pero todos los que luchan por la justicia son mis companèros de armas. 

I feel those injustices. Deeply. Empathy is one of my weaknesses.
But I no longer feel it for those for whom the injustice is self-inflicted. Wanted to hurt the least among us because you thought that just meant brown people and Haitians? And now the leopard is eating your poor white trash face? GOOD. FEAST, LEOPARD.
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Derka said:

realistically, what does this mean?

 

It means the """free market""" business board regulars are about to decide they're ok with price controls all of a sudden

  • Rage+1 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Is there? My premise is that when the richest and most powerful clients or most prestigious and powerful firms are involved, there isn’t, “usually.”

That you think that’s meaningless is an interesting (and revealing point), but would you say lawyers have an individual duty to uphold legal process?

Can’t it? What’s the maximum time allowed for a crisis to unfold, counselor?
 

As to the first point, I don't believe the richest and most powerful law firms often defraud courts.  Do they do other possibly unsavory things within the letter of the law, sure they do.  So do the poorest and dumbest lawyers.  Is Susman Godfrey a rich and powerful law firm?  What about Perkins Coie?  Williams & Connolly?

I don't know what "uphold legal process" means.  Obey the rules of Civil Procedure?  Criminal Procedure?  Someone's interpretation of the Constitution? Never try to change the laws?  Never make an argument that goes against or is unsupported by existing precedent?  Never file a lawsuit that is skimpy on facts and relies on discovery to establish the facts to support it?  Only file lawsuits that someone determines "support democracy" or some other halcyon notion of righteousness?

The most glaring recent example of a lawyer that tried to "defraud" a court was Sidney Powell and her Kraken bullshit. She was sanctioned in one court where the opponent asked for sanctions, she was not in other courts because the opponent didn't ask for it.  The State Bar of Texas acted on one or more grievances, and brought disciplinary "charges" that failed basically because the Bar lawyers were incompetent.

So, the legal profession then, temporally, has always been in crisis.  Marbury v. Madison is now considered a foundational principle of this country, but there were actually people arguing against the judiciary's power and duty to declare what is the law.  So, I guess those opponents were so unamerican, or undemocratic, or anti-judicial-review, combined with the fact that their dispute made it to the Supreme Court that the legal profession has been in crisis in this country basically from the outset.  Worth noting that Marbury is Calvinball.  And John Marshall, as Adams' Secretary of State, should have recused himself.

I think what you and many are trying to argue is a more sophisticated version of "criminal lawyers are scum because they represent criminals."

There's a lot of actual scum running around these days and they're getting representation, as tends to be their right.  But, they're also being opposed and the opposition is winning at a handy rate.   The composition and decisions of the current Supreme Court, and some of the Courts of Appeals are worrisome to a crisis extent, but that's a product of political processes, not the legal profession or system itself.

 

 

Posted
9 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

But, if we disbar or discipline or whatever all the lawyers that make shitty arguments, like "frivolous tort lawsuits," we're gonna have a problem.

Twice, this kind of thinking gives me pause. In a recent conversation with a doctor friend of mine, he said it was next to impossible to get doctors to support prosecution of wayward doctors. The more I thought about it, it occurred to me the same cold be said of law enforcement, clergy, coaches, politicians and other groups. 

Posted
2 hours ago, NWBuck said:

My guess? He's going to ensure that pharmaceutical prices around the world are elevated so that a) American prices are the lowest (in spite of not changing), b) 'those people' will be deprived affordable medications, and c) his donors in the drug industry will continue to profit 

Taken on it's face, it's price controls.  That thing they were so made at Kamala about.

And, at some point, he was all hot and bothered about tariffing imported drugs, which is a whole lot of them.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Derka said:

realistically, what does this mean?

 

For the most part, I'm going to take this for the usual half performative-half market manipulation for which  this regime is known, but I would like to register my grievance with the White House that I'm going to have a little 't' tomorrow and not a Tomorrow because it's Monday and nothing good comes of a Monday when you start adding random capital letters to words.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

As to the first point, I don't believe the richest and most powerful law firms often defraud courts. 

Because you are a close reader, I’m quite sure you know that wasn’t the premise. What’s disappointing is that you think I’m dumb enough to defend a strawman. 

7 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I don't know what "uphold legal process" means

Well gosh, you’ll have to take that up with the ABA, as that is a quote from the preamble to their model rules of professional conduct sec.5. If you don’t know what it means, I’m not sure how I, a simple tradesman peddler,  would be in a position to tell you.
 

11 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I think what you and many are trying to argue is a more sophisticated version of "criminal lawyers are scum because they represent criminals."

No, what I am arguing is that the legal profession does not effectively police itself. Nothing more or less. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, Satchel said:

Twice, this kind of thinking gives me pause. In a recent conversation with a doctor friend of mine, he said it was next to impossible to get doctors to support prosecution of wayward doctors. The more I thought about it, it occurred to me the same cold be said of law enforcement, clergy, coaches, politicians and other groups. 

That's not the issue.  The issue is disciplining lawyers for filing unpopular lawsuits, no matter how justifiable is that lack of popularity, is highly problematic, because it is often unpopular or sketchy-looking cases that are the vehicle by which the law is improved.  Or, take away discipline entirely, curtailing the ability of lawyers to file unpopular lawsuit and proceedings is similarly problematic.

Take tort reform.  Although the narrative was a) largely false and b) highly promoted by moneyed interests, it was a popular narrative because everyone knows someone that was sued in a "bullshit lawsuit."  We curtailed the ability of lawyers to file injury lawsuits, medical malpractice in particular, on the basis of a popularity contest.  Bad business.  But just because the un/popularity is based on true or accurate facts, or is justifiable, doesn't make this good business.

A real example.  It is, indeed, very difficult to find medical experts to testify against their brethren in civil medical malpractice suits.  A friend of mine, now an orthopedic surgeon, reviewed malpractice cases for a plaintiff's law firm (but did not and could not testify, as he wasn't actually a doctor yet).  But he was super hush-hush on the QT about that whole thing lest it affect him professionally.

You will find no shortage of lawyers willing to testify against their brethren in malpractice cases or any other kind of professional discipline thing.

The reason bars and medical associations have problems with discipline is two-fold, or three-fold.  First, unlike a CPA license or many other professional credentials, it is absolutely necessary to practice (an accountant can still count beans quite lucratively without a CPA license, for example). For many docs and lawyers, their license is a ticket to wealth and personal self-regard and they're not going to let it go without a helluva fight. This is related to the second, or 1(a):  many lawyers and doctors will fight like hell, are reasonably or unreasonably wealthy, and willing and able to fund a stout defense.  The third, or second independent reason, is State Bars and Medical Associations aren't particularly wealthy or well-funded and they cannot attract or retain (ie pay) top flight lawyers to oppose these stout defenses, and they are also spread too thin and overworked in most cases.

  • Fuck You 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, hornmpa96 said:

I’m curious to see the action tomorrow on prescription drug pricing. He may luck into something here. 


He’s the dumbest president of all time surrounded by people dumber than he is. I have absolutely no expectations. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 3
Posted
1 minute ago, Firemans4Horn said:


He’s the dumbest president of all time surrounded by people dumber than he is. I have absolutely no expectations. 

Fully agree with all of this.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
4 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Because you are a close reader, I’m quite sure you know that wasn’t the premise. What’s disappointing is that you think I’m dumb enough to defend a strawman. 

Well gosh, you’ll have to take that up with the ABA, as that is a quote from the preamble to their model rules of professional conduct sec.5. If you don’t know what it means, I’m not sure how I, a simple tradesman peddler,  would be in a position to tell you.
 

No, what I am arguing is that the legal profession does not effectively police itself. Nothing more or less. 

Well that is certainly a more pointed statement than "the legal profession is in crisis," which implies that at one time it was not in crisis and doesn't really give a clue as to what the crisis might be.

I didn't intend to make you defend a straw man.  Your premise, in keeping with your more pointed statement immediately above, was that rich and powerful law firms, or more accurately their constituent lawyers are rarely disciplined for acts like "defrauding the courts."  I submit that rather than being a result of their being rich and powerful, it's because they don't regularly defraud courts or commit other professional violations.  Sure, they do unto others, but well within the letter of the law the vast majority of the time.

One other factor relating to my practical considerations post above.  Rich clients (eg corporations) tend not to file malpractice suits, or grievances on lawyers, they just fire them.

Despite its presence in the Model Rules (and preambles are typically regarded as surplusage anyway), it's still a near- or completely meaningless phrase, aspirational rather than enforceable.  See, e.g. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" and scads of other gobbledygook in legal prose from the Constitution on down.

 

Posted
2 hours ago, InkaUtexas said:

@Brisketexan

Si usted es capaz de sentir indignacion por las injusticias cometidas por todo el miundo, somos companeros.

 

2 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

No puedo hablar por @Brisketexan pero todos los que luchan por la justicia son mis companèros de armas. 

 

Ai8575432.thumb.jpg.c0e08b94ea471e64ca438e7e34302238.jpg

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
  • Haha 4
  • Rage+1 1
  • Drool 1


×
×
  • Create New...