[DwightShrute]

what has he really done in the last 2 years but ..

[Handjuice]

Lol!!

I don't think so man, 2 years is not enough time to repair all the damage Bush did, and Obama has not started any bogus wars. We will see how it all pans out in the coming years.

[falconticket]

^^^ Cool image.

Didn't we have a surplus when Clinton left office? When Clinton left office we had a great economic situation, and then Bush fukked it up. Obama inherited Bush's fukk up.

No surplus. The surplus was " projected" and took a lot of factors into account such as : economy stays the same, markets and jobs stay the same. Unfortunately this did not come to fruition in part to the 9/11 attacks. Some like to pretend there was a surplus since we were able to borrow enough from social security to pay the budget that year. However that has to be paid back eventually. They should not be borrowing from the SS fund in the first place. Its like if you put your mortgage on a credit card that month instead of paying it out of your paycheck. Would you say you had a "surplus"? Hell no,, rational people cannot operate on this type of math. The national debt still went up that year. Period. And continues to go up year after year. The feds can no longer borrow from social security because there are no excess funds coming in anymore.

[frostno98]

Love listening to right wing radio when driving home from workHannity Calls this Obama's 3 year recession. Right, he inherited Bushes recession that even Ronald Regan can't fix, and now he's the one that got us into this mess.

[The Madcap]

Being a lawyer isn't a "real job" now? Even though it is one of the highest paying professions out there?

Being a Hollywood actor is a lucrative job as well, doesn't mean it's a "real job."

And to answer your question, no, being a lawyer isn't a "real job," it's a paper shuffle hustle, much like being a politician. And I'm not saying that to hate on lawyers. My dad's a lawyer, my older brother's a lawyer, my best man's a lawyer, love 'em all. But they know as well as I do their profression has turned into a pimper's paradise, which is probably why they're all alcoholics.

There was probably a time when being a lawyer was a real job, decades ago when our civil and criminal courts weren't overburdened with a bunch of Mickey Mouse bullshit, and the rule of law maintained consistentcy and credibility througout the system. But then jackasses started getting rich by abusing tort law and getting their high-profile clients acquitted, and now we've got more people in law schools in this country than there are currently lawyers. And all of them want jobs. And all the lawyers that are out there want to keep their jobs and their cars and houses and spouses. Which means they all need more clients so they can keep making money. Which means it's all about expanding their need and relevance. Which in some ways, makes it a profession just like every other, the only difference is that lawyers have the ability to create and forcibly expand their market with the mere stroke of a pen, instead of actually having to go through the process of inventing new/improved products. Which is to say, it's about the same as consensual sex and rape. Yeah there's a climax, but that don't make it desired by both parties.

[rkelly110]

Guy raised the stockmarket 100% singlehandedly from his predecessor. I don't care if he is black or white but everything he did so far for this country has been perfect. If the stockmarket is booming at election time he will not lose. Because the public knows the GOP candidate will be a big douchebag.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/how...oom-2011-01-20

One writers view of what 'bama did to help the market.

[rickbo528]

I don't care which of his policies. When the Giants won the World Series which of their manager's policies help them win?

When someone is a winner in life you don't question how he does it. You join the crowd and celebrate and quit being a sore loser!

I see by your avatar that "Atlanta Falcons" are NFC Champs. I seem to recall a team from Green Bay whipping their damn asses all over the field. Don't think I will take anything you say seriously.

[SteveB]

Are you kidding me? I was no particular fan of George Bush but to suggest that the hate directed towards Obama is anywhere near Bush is insanity. When the man misspoke he was branded an idiot and the piling on became ludicrous. I have seen no such thing with Obama.

[Hotdiggity11]

Being a Hollywood actor is a lucrative job as well, doesn't mean it's a "real job."

And to answer your question, no, being a lawyer isn't a "real job," it's a paper shuffle hustle, much like being a politician. And I'm not saying that to hate on lawyers. My dad's a lawyer, my older brother's a lawyer, my best man's a lawyer, love 'em all. But they know as well as I do their profression has turned into a pimper's paradise, which is probably why they're all alcoholics.

There was probably a time when being a lawyer was a real job, decades ago when our civil and criminal courts weren't overburdened with a bunch of Mickey Mouse bullshit, and the rule of law maintained consistentcy and credibility througout the system. But then jackasses started getting rich by abusing tort law and getting their high-profile clients acquitted, and now we've got more people in law schools in this country than there are currently lawyers. And all of them want jobs. And all the lawyers that are out there want to keep their jobs and their cars and houses and spouses. Which means they all need more clients so they can keep making money. Which means it's all about expanding their need and relevance. Which in some ways, makes it a profession just like every other, the only difference is that lawyers have the ability to create and forcibly expand their market with the mere stroke of a pen, instead of actually having to go through the process of inventing new/improved products. Which is to say, it's about the same as consensual sex and rape. Yeah there's a climax, but that don't make it desired by both parties.

Being a lawyer is a job that requires hard work, intelligence, and practice to obtain, along with being highly paid. I'd say that constitutes a "real job." Of course, people always have disdain for them... until they need one.

[philswin]

^^^ Cool image.

Didn't we have a surplus when Clinton left office? When Clinton left office we had a great economic situation, and then Bush fukked it up. Obama inherited Bush's fukk up.

If you recall the first 2 years of the Clinton presidency in which he tried to implement his left wing agenda - massive spending, more social programs, Hilary care, bigger Govt. He could not even his budget passed through his own party. The mid-year elections brought the Republicans in to take over the House and Senate and most importantly the Republican Contract with America and the fiscal responsibility act, which stopped the riduculous spending and Govt growth and forced a balanced budget, I do give Clinton credit for moving to the center and dropping his left wing agenda. But the Contract for America and Newt Gingrich stopped the spending and brought about a balanced budget. Unfortunatly Bush moved away from the elements in the contract with America and Obama even more. Obama is now back again trying to implement left wing agenda, the people spoke again. We need to go back to the contract with America and the principles it brought. Wonder what Newt Gingrich is up to in 2012???

[19th Hole]

Lol!!

I don't think so man, 2 years is not enough time to repair all the damage Bush did, and Obama has not started any bogus wars. We will see how it all pans out in the coming years.

Makes a lot of sense.

[itchypickle]

Lol!!

I don't think so man, 2 years is not enough time to repair all the damage Bush did, and Obama has not started any bogus wars. We will see how it all pans out in the coming years.

Bush did some harm...you're right...but let's not forget that Obama has:

Spent more in 2 years than Bush did in EIGHT

CONTINUED the same military strategy as Bush that he claimed was misguided while running for office

Started a new military action in both Yemen and Pakistan

Reopened trials in Gitmo

Continued policy of holding enemy combatants indefinitely as a special class without formal charges

Continued the rendition program

Made the banks involved in the financial crisis BIGGER

Made law allowing banks to borrow directly from the Federal Reserve so that they no longer have to receive a bailout through a vote

I could go on if you like but reality is Obama has fukked up in 2 years....imagine what's in store for the next 2 . You're one of those blind followers that said "he's only been in office 90 days....he's only been in office 180 days....he's only been in office 1 year......he's only been in office 18 months....he's only been here 2 years.....WHEN will you realize that at SOME point it's time to safe to say he's not the messiah you hoped for and is not a great leader...he's nothing more than a token nominee who can actually read well....period. Why not nominate James Earl Jones or Morgan Freeman in 2012...I mean they're both well spoken minorities....they'll make GREAT leaders

[DwightShrute]

Lol!!

I don't think so man, 2 years is not enough time to repair all the damage Bush did, and Obama has not started any bogus wars. We will see how it all pans out in the coming years.

makes no sense

[C-Gold]

All Right Wingers can join hands and jump in unison in the Colorado river and do us all a favor.

All the Liberals can get out of the unemployment line and die in the filth of Newark New Jersey, Detroit, and the ghettos of Atlanta.

[C-Gold]

Why not nominate James Earl Jones or Morgan Freeman in 2012...I mean they're both well spoken minorities....they'll make GREAT leaders

Morgan Freeman 2012.

Plus maybe he will be able to help Obama break out of Prison

[Hotdiggity11]

Morgan Freeman 2012.

Plus maybe he will be able to help Obama break out of Prison

Prison for what, hurting your wittle vagina?

[King Mayan]

[C-Gold]

Prison for what, hurting your wittle vagina?

After looking at the dorky, fat, 4 eyed geek in your avatar, it's pretty safe to say you haven't seen a real vagina since your mom shit you out about 40 years ago.

You lose again chump

[Hotdiggity11]

After looking at the dorky, fat, 4 eyed geek in your avatar, it's pretty safe to say you haven't seen a real vagina since your mom shit you out about 40 years ago.

You lose again chump

1. Fat? Is that what 6"1 195 is called these days? Meanwhile, you are too scared to even produce a picture of yourself, likely because you are a lonely 325 pound virgin who needs to feel validated on an Internet forum.


2. I guess my original assessment of you was correct.

[The Madcap]

Being a lawyer is a job that requires hard work, intelligence, and practice to obtain, along with being highly paid. I'd say that constitutes a "real job." Of course, people always have disdain for them... until they need one.

You're deluding yourself if you think being a lawyer requires intelligence. More than anything it requires charming social skills. Now if you want to argue that's a type of intelligence, fine. But you're a fool if you think the ABA is a bastion of erudite intellectualism.

Being a brick mason requires hard work. Being a farmer requires hard work. Running your own restaurant requires hard work. Sitting in an air conditioned office all day billing $100.00 an hour writing up a contracts is not hard work. It might require education and training, but it ain't hard. Unless you think sitting at a desk solving crossword puzzles all day is hard work. It's about the same skill set.

And yes, most people disdain lawyers until they need one, this is because most people would never need a lawyer if it wasn't for the existence of lawyers in the first place.

[King Mayan]

1. Fat? Is that what 6"1 195 is called these days? Meanwhile, you are too scared to even produce a picture of yourself, likely because you are a lonely 325 pound virgin who needs to feel validated on an Internet forum.


2. I guess my original assessment of you was correct.

[Hotdiggity11]

You're deluding yourself if you think being a lawyer requires intelligence. More than anything it requires charming social skills. Now if you want to argue that's a type of intelligence, fine. But you're a fool if you think the ABA is a bastion of erudite intellectualism.

Being a brick mason requires hard work. Being a farmer requires hard work. Running your own restaurant requires hard work. Sitting in an air conditioned office all day billing $100.00 an hour writing up a contracts is not hard work. It might require education and training, but it ain't hard. Unless you think sitting at a desk solving crossword puzzles all day is hard work. It's about the same skill set.

And yes, most people disdain lawyers until they need one, this is because most people would never need a lawyer if it wasn't for the existence of lawyers in the first place.

1. Doesn't require intelligence? How many bar exams did you pass?

2. Being a lawyer requires hard work as well. Not everyone wants to be a farmer or brick mason after all, some people actually want to make real money instead of a dead-end job that won't get them anywhere 40 years after they started.


3. Your last statement didn't even make sense. Of course lawyers are needed, hell, they are even referenced to in the U.S. Constitution.

[The Madcap]

1. Doesn't require intelligence? How many bar exams did you pass?

2. Being a lawyer requires hard work as well. Not everyone wants to be a farmer or brick mason after all, some people actually want to make real money instead of a dead-end job that won't get them anywhere 40 years after they started.


3. Your last statement didn't even make sense. Of course lawyers are needed, hell, they are even referenced to in the U.S. Constitution.

1) Two actually. States of NC/VA. Bet you didn't see that coming.


2) Diggity there's no other way to say this: if you think lawyering is hard work then you're a pansy. Plain and simple. For any literate person with a half a brain and the schooling it's little more than the busy work you got assigned in tenth grade civics. And just because you make money doesn't mean you're working all that hard or have a "real job." IE: like the Hollywood actors I mentioned before. Or college professors. Or real estate agents. Or syndicated cartoonists. Or anyone else that basically gets to sit on their ass all day and screw around.

This isn't to say that some lawyers aren't "over-worked," but there's a difference between being "over-worked" and your work being hard. Grading the spelling quizzes of third graders isn't hard work, but if you've got to grade 1,000 of them in three days, yeah, the tedium of it might be difficult to handle. But volume fluctuates and therefore cannot be considered a constant variable of difficulty. And since most every job will at some point have high volume rates, you can't count high volume busy work as "hard work."

3) I didn't say lawyers aren't needed. I said most people would never need to hire a lawyer if it weren't for lawyers. There's a difference. A concept of which I'm not in the least bit shocked you couldn't make sense. But I'll try and help....

Think of the movie "Ghost Busters." Now, imagine that instead of the ghosts being real, they are actually a hoax perpetrated by the Ghost Busters as Larry King and others suggest in the movie, that the "Ghost Busters" are the "cause of it all." In this scenario the Ghost Busters are then basically swindlers, artificially manufacturing the demand for their services. And that is the basic existence of most lawyers and the laws they write. Whether they are malicious and cognizant applicants is irrelevant. Lawyers serve one purpose more than any other: the perpetuation of their relevance. Most differences in life could be solved without lawyers, but they aren't, because lawyers have gone out of their way to ensure these differences are impossible to solve without their participation. Why you haven't already grasped this I can't say, but I imagine that very ignorance of how the real world works is the foundation for the majority of your liberal beliefs.

[Hotdiggity11]

1) Two actually. States of NC/VA. Bet you didn't see that coming.


2) Diggity there's no other way to say this: if you think lawyering is hard work then you're a pansy. Plain and simple. For any literate person with a half a brain and the schooling it's little more than the busy work you got assigned in tenth grade civics. And just because you make money doesn't mean you're working all that hard or have a "real job." IE: like the Hollywood actors I mentioned before. Or college professors. Or real estate agents. Or syndicated cartoonists. Or anyone else that basically gets to sit on their ass all day and screw around.

This isn't to say that some lawyers aren't "over-worked," but there's a difference between being "over-worked" and your work being hard. Grading the spelling quizzes of third graders isn't hard work, but if you've got to grade 1,000 of them in three days, yeah, the tedium of it might be difficult to handle. But volume fluctuates and therefore cannot be considered a constant variable of difficulty. And since most every job will at some point have high volume rates, you can't count high volume busy work as "hard work."

3) I didn't say lawyers aren't needed. I said most people would never need to hire a lawyer if it weren't for lawyers. There's a difference. A concept of which I'm not in the least bit shocked you couldn't make sense. But I'll try and help....

Think of the movie "Ghost Busters." Now, imagine that instead of the ghosts being real, they are actually a hoax perpetrated by the Ghost Busters as Larry King and others suggest in the movie, that the "Ghost Busters" are the "cause of it all." In this scenario the Ghost Busters are then basically swindlers, artificially manufacturing the demand for their services. And that is the basic existence of most lawyers and the laws they write. Whether they are malicious and cognizant applicants is irrelevant. Lawyers serve one purpose more than any other: the perpetuation of their relevance. Most differences in life could be solved without lawyers, but they aren't, because lawyers have gone out of their way to ensure these differences are impossible to solve without their participation. Why you haven't already grasped this I can't say, but I imagine that very ignorance of how the real world works is the foundation for the majority of your liberal beliefs.

1. Then you would know they are not easy, unless you are lying.


2. No, lawyering is hard work. It is a job that is not methodical and requires constant learning and relearning. One where the circumstances change every time you have a new case/assignment. You seem to be negative towards jobs that largely require intellectual thinking to accomplish the majority of your tasks over physical labor. Your idea of it not being a "real job" seems to be more because of your hatred towards them than any sort of cohesive point, especially when it is a job that meets all the qualifications of a real job over a temporary job [Consistent hours, long-term profession, specialization, steady revenue, etc etc].

3. The last part seems to validate what I said in the 2nd part of my post about your views of lawyers clouding any sort of reasoning to admit you are wrong. Ironically, lawyers themselves have very little direct power and simply go off the limitations of the system, the system that was put in place by representatives that, in due time, were elected by citizens. Of course, you brought up one of the most interesting quotes "And the laws they write." I hate to break the news to you but lawyers don't write laws. Lawyers apply law and seek to advance the interests of their clients through law, they don't write it. Politicians, especially legislators, write law. Are there politicians that used to be or might currently be practicing law? Sure, but that wouldn't be as the authority of the lawyer as it isn't their job. Quotes such as this makes me very much doubt you ever took a bar exam.

[rkelly110]

I could see the mad one passing the bar exam. If being a good bull shitter was required to pass
the exam, I could see it happening.

[The Madcap]

1. Then you would know they are not easy, unless you are lying.


2. No, lawyering is hard work. It is a job that is not methodical and requires constant learning and relearning. One where the circumstances change every time you have a new case/assignment. You seem to be negative towards jobs that largely require intellectual thinking to accomplish the majority of your tasks over physical labor. Your idea of it not being a "real job" seems to be more because of your hatred towards them than any sort of cohesive point, especially when it is a job that meets all the qualifications of a real job over a temporary job [Consistent hours, long-term profession, specialization, steady revenue, etc etc].

3. The last part seems to validate what I said in the 2nd part of my post about your views of lawyers clouding any sort of reasoning to admit you are wrong. Ironically, lawyers themselves have very little direct power and simply go off the limitations of the system, the system that was put in place by representatives that, in due time, were elected by citizens. Of course, you brought up one of the most interesting quotes "And the laws they write." I hate to break the news to you but lawyers don't write laws. Lawyers apply law and seek to advance the interests of their clients through law, they don't write it. Politicians, especially legislators, write law. Are there politicians that used to be or might currently be practicing law? Sure, but that wouldn't be as the authority of the lawyer as it isn't their job. Quotes such as this makes me very much doubt you ever took a bar exam.

1) Unless you went to a really shitty law school, the bar exam will be the easiest test you'll have. And the only "difficult" thing about it is some semblance of memorization. Once you pass the bar, you don't need to remember anything. That's what law libraries are for. Passing the bar exam is no more difficult than passing the test to get one's auto mechanic license. It just requires having the right background and the proper hours of study/training. Again, volume in itself does not equal difficulty.

2) Not methodical? ARE YOU RETARDED? It's entirely methodical! Seriously. I'm starting to think you are a complete dumbass. Think about something methodical. Say, I don't, know, solving algebraic equations. Now the specific numbers might change in each equation, and thus so might the specific answer, but the steps to finding the solution are always the same. And studying case law to write up a contract or construct a defense is the same exact damned thing. The reason why less than 1% of all cases go to trial is precisely because it's so f*cking methodical. If you can't understand that, find your nearest litigator and ask him to explain it to you.

2.5) I'm not negative torwards jobs that are more about thinking than manual labor. I'm negative torwards jobs whose most consistent function is constructing perfunctory protocals and paramters that are competely unecessary and would otherwise not exist if not for the pre-existence of those jobs. I've got no problems with architects or engineers or physicists.

3) JESUS H. CHRIST. You are such a pawn Diggity. Such a fukking pawn. Get your head in the game! My god man.

Who the fuk do you think the "legislators" are?

Know who wrote the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act? Lawyers did.
Know who wrote that Arizona immigration law? Lawyers did.
Know why you have miranda rights? Lawyers.
Know who wrote your neighborhood zoning laws? Lawyers.
Know why you always have to sign a bunch of dumb bullshit any time you get a new job? Lawyers.
Ever worked for a company that had a bunch of dumb rules and guidelines you had to follow? Lawyers wrote them.

And in the rare instances that lawyers didn't actually write a law, that law was written in direct response to the actions taken by another lawyer. You really don't have any fukking clue how the legal/political community operate do you?

You saying "lawyers don't write the laws" is like saying construction workers don't build high rises. Yeah, they might not have been the specific ones entrusted to draw up the schematics, but they are the mechanism that put such plans into action. Jesus you are so much more clueless than I thought.

My reasoning isn't clouded. It's experienced. I've been in the business. You on the other hand, have no real frame of reference. But you want to believe don't you? So badly it seems. Other than what you've been told by similar high-minded idealists, or what you think you've seen, you don't know shit. You really don't. You speak out of your ass, your self-righteous idealism precluding you from seeing any truth or reality other than the bullshit daydream you pretend you live in.

And of course you won't listen to anyone with real experience tell you how it is. Nope. You'll just pass them off. Question their credibility. Call them a liar. Pull that whole Luke Skywalker "No that's not true, that's impossible!" denial routine. God you are such a liberal tool. This is why American hates you. This is why on the playground of life, no one wants to play with you anymore. Your arrogant sense of self-importance won't allow you to ever admit when you're wrong. Like I've told you before, you don't know everything. And neither do I. But at least I concede it and inquire about the things I don't know instead of running my mouth like I do. Maybe if you'd shut your fukking trap from time to time and listen you might learn something. Being a man means admitting when you aren't everything you wish you were. At least to yourself. The next step is doing what it takes to get there. I hope you see the light.

[The Madcap]

I could see the mad one passing the bar exam. If being a good bull shitter was required to pass
the exam, I could see it happening.

Yes and yes. That's all it takes. Like I told diggity, being a lawyer is all about charm. And all charm is, is bullshit.

Two guys approach a girl. Both want to sleep with her. One fails. One succeeds. Why? "He was SOOOO charming." IE: He was able to bullshit around his sexual intentions well enough to get her to take her panties off. And that's all being a lawyer is. Undressing the mental panties of a jury. (Or a judge or DA or opposing counsel)

[Hotdiggity11]

1. Going by your analysis in your previous post, I very much doubt you ever touched a bar exam. I'll get to why later.


2. Uh no, it's not methodical. Math is methodical. Many parts of science are methodical. When your job involves totally different circumstances, clients, witnesses, etc, it is not methodical. It would be good to learn the difference.


3. It is pretty obvious now you don't know the difference between a legislator and a lawyer. This is why I very much doubt you have even touched law, much less been to law school or passed a bar exam. Do you know what a legislator is? Or a staffer? Or a lobbyist? You know none of those require you to be a lawyer to obtain? It's quite doubtful you do.

It's funny you attack liberalism since conservatism, as an ideology, has been a historic joke. I mean, it must be depressing being part of an ideology that always screams "fiscal responsibility" but had a history of matching and, at times, even overwhelming spending done by liberals. It must suck to be part of an ideology that screams "small government" but was responsibility for the War on Drugs, Prohibition, the PATRIOT Act, overextending our military, etc. Not to mention idealistic in having pipe dreams about the past as some great perfect paradise while the present is awful in comparison. I hate to break the bad news to you but the world was never like what you saw in "Leave it to Beaver." Ronald Reagan didn't really ever lower spending or make the government smaller after 8 years as president either. Yet you and others still hold him up as some great Messiah.

And saying Americans "hate liberalism" is hilarious, considering Americans reap the benefits of what Progressives and liberals have achieved throughout American history. Safe working conditions, equal pay, child labor laws, desegregation in schools, desegregation of the military, Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, etc etc. What has conservatism done on the other hand? When was the last time a conservative president balanced the budget or made the government overall smaller during his administration? You would have to go back to Coolidge to even find a prime example and he was lucky to avoid being the president who resided over the Great Depression by less than a year.


So, don't preach to me about "admitting I'm wrong" or having life experience when you have yet to even accept the overall failures of your own ideology.

[The Madcap]

1. Going by your analysis in your previous post, I very much doubt you ever touched a bar exam. I'll get to why later.


2. Uh no, it's not methodical. Math is methodical. Many parts of science are methodical. When your job involves totally different circumstances, clients, witnesses, etc, it is not methodical. It would be good to learn the difference.


3. It is pretty obvious now you don't know the difference between a legislator and a lawyer. This is why I very much doubt you have even touched law, much less been to law school or passed a bar exam. Do you know what a legislator is? Or a staffer? Or a lobbyist? You know none of those require you to be a lawyer to obtain? It's quite doubtful you do.

It's funny you attack liberalism since conservatism, as an ideology, has been a historic joke. I mean, it must be depressing being part of an ideology that always screams "fiscal responsibility" but had a history of matching and, at times, even overwhelming spending done by liberals. It must suck to be part of an ideology that screams "small government" but was responsibility for the War on Drugs, Prohibition, the PATRIOT Act, overextending our military, etc. Not to mention idealistic in having pipe dreams about the past as some great perfect paradise while the present is awful in comparison. I hate to break the bad news to you but the world was never like what you saw in "Leave it to Beaver." Ronald Reagan didn't really ever lower spending or make the government smaller after 8 years as president either. Yet you and others still hold him up as some great Messiah.

And saying Americans "hate liberalism" is hilarious, considering Americans reap the benefits of what Progressives and liberals have achieved throughout American history. Safe working conditions, equal pay, child labor laws, desegregation in schools, desegregation of the military, Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, etc etc. What has conservatism done on the other hand? When was the last time a conservative president balanced the budget or made the government overall smaller during his administration? You would have to go back to Coolidge to even find a prime example and he was lucky to avoid being the president who resided over the Great Depression by less than a year.


So, don't preach to me about "admitting I'm wrong" or having life experience when you have yet to even accept the overall failures of your own ideology.

1) Well of course you do. And you know something, if I thought for a minute you might actually believe it if you saw it, and I was so petty to disclose that type of information just to shut you up, I might consider taking a photo of my bar card and posting it for you to see. But then you'd just think I borrowed it from a friend. I mean, how would you know it wasn't my brother's? Right? Such a liberal. You hear hooves, and you think Zebra. Because seeing a zebra fits your narrative better than seeing the horse.

2) "totally different circumstances, clients, witnesses," Yeah, no shit. These are what are known as variables. Sure the clients and witnesses and circumstances change, just like the numbers change in those algebra equations I mentioned earlier. I thought that would have been a good enough metaphor for you to grasp the concept. I guess not.

Now the explanations presented prior should really be enough to explain this to you. But either you're too dense to understand, too difficult to want to accept it, or too arrogant to concede it. So I'll spell it out for you to the point that hopefully you'll be forced to shut up and admit you're wrong. (at least to yourself)

"Methodical" as defined by Webster's: Done according to a systematic or established form of procedure.

1) Lawyer interviews the accused.
2) Lawyer interviews witnesses.
3) Lawyer interviews the accused again.
4) Lawyer interviews more witnesses.
5) Lawyer researches past cases/trials with facts/circumstances similar to the case.
6) Lawyer researches past cases/trials with common prosecutor.
7) Lawyer researches past cases/trials with common judge.
8) Lawyer constructs a defense.

And that's how it works. It's a standard procedure. It is a methodology. And while witnesses/crimes/the accused change, they are no different than the variables that change in any other equation. The variables just happen to represent real life events instead of numbers. This really isn't that difficult. Stop acting like it is. I really don't think you're this stupid. I think you're just being stubborn.

3) I know all about it Diggity. I worked in D.C. for three years. At times with the "legislators," at times with the lobbyists. HAVE YOU? Or are you just going off what you read in a book somewhere? And no you don't need a law degree to be a staffer. You don't need a law degree to be a paralegal either. Hell, there was a time when you didn't even need a law degree to be a lawyer. So no, you don't need to be a lawyer to be a staffer or lobbyist. You don't need a CDL to be an architect. But no building you design gets built without someone that does. Just like no law gets written without the influence, direct or otherwise, of a lawyer.

3a) You don't know shit about my ideology. I'm not a conservative. And when I call you a liberal, I don't mean in the political "I'm in favor of gun control, support universal health care, want to decriminalize weed, oppose a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage" sense. Hell I'm favor of decriminalizing weed and oppose an amendment banning gay marriage. I mean it in the philosophical sense. The life-style sense. The mindset sense. The sense of ideaslism you maintain because you've spent your whole fukking life insulated in a bubble of theoretical application and good intentioned self-importance and are therefore incapable of understanding how and why practicing law in the real world is as methodical as the physics that design rockets.

All ideologies are failures. Because ideologies are theoretical constructs that are impossible to translate across the conditional boundries of the real world. I realize that. Which is why I'm not a conservative. You don't. Because you have your head stuck so far up your ass to think another position's failure is validation of your own. It's not. It's a fallacy you know.

So yes, go get some life experience. Please. For the love of god please. I don't care if you stay a convicted Obama gagging liberal the rest of your life, but please, at least become an informed and experienced one. One mature enough to recognize you ain't that fukking special, you don't know everything, and eventually there comes a time in life when you weaken your ability to succeed if you never lose the conciet to know when to concede.

[NrmlCurvSurfr]

being a lawyer is a real job. See definition of "job". http://www.merriam-webster.com/dicti...1&t=1296257889 Case closed.

This one was easy...Maybe ill play a little golf now.

[Hotdiggity11]

It seems you still don't understand how being a lawyer isn't methodical. I already pointed out how the CASES make it non-methodical, no shit there is a law-like structure for handling them. But that would be like saying books are exactly the same just because you read them and it involves flipping pages.

And yes, I have worked in Washington D.C. [Two years] as well as have worked with various politicians including U.S. Representatives and State Senators of my own state. At the moment, I work in the non-profit sector. So don't try to act like you have all of this amazing experience and no one else does.


Just because you don't consider yourself a certain ideology doesn't mean you don't lean that way. Going by your posts that I have frequently seen, "conservative" or "libertarian" is your obvious ideology. It is funny how you quickly condemn labeling of ideologies when you decided to start it to begin with. Both liberalism and conservatism are idealistic, that is the entire point of adverse ideologies. Also, my lifestyle? WTF are you even talking about? I live in a non-urban part of a southern state and enjoy everything from academic interests to sports to poker. What lifestyle are you even condensing to being "liberal?"

[The Madcap]

being a lawyer is a real job. See definition of "job". http://www.merriam-webster.com/dicti...1&t=1296257889 Case closed.

This one was easy...Maybe ill play a little golf now.

Seriously?

By that definition being a camp counselor or porno actor qualify. C'mon. They're no more real than fake . Yeah you can "see" them, but the consistency's a bit different.

[NrmlCurvSurfr]

Seriously?

By that definition being a camp counselor or porno actor qualify. C'mon. They're no more real than fake . Yeah you can "see" them, but the consistency's a bit different.

Yes, by that definition, both a camp counselor and a adult entertainment actor would be considered jobs. Would you consider them to be "fake"? I'm not sure how many people interpret the definition of "fake", as loosely as you do. If you do a task that requires effort(in any amount), and you are compensated(in any way, ex. self satisfaction, survival, money), you are doing a job. I don't think the relative effort output has anything to do with the validity of the tasks description as a "job".

[The Madcap]

It seems you still don't understand how being a lawyer isn't methodical. I already pointed out how the CASES make it non-methodical, no shit there is a law-like structure for handling them. But that would be like saying books are exactly the same just because you read them and it involves flipping pages.

And yes, I have worked in Washington D.C. [Two years] as well as have worked with various politicians including U.S. Representatives and State Senators of my own state. At the moment, I work in the non-profit sector. So don't try to act like you have all of this amazing experience and no one else does.


Just because you don't consider yourself a certain ideology doesn't mean you don't lean that way. Going by your posts that I have frequently seen, "conservative" or "libertarian" is your obvious ideology. It is funny how you quickly condemn labeling of ideologies when you decided to start it to begin with. Both liberalism and conservatism are idealistic, that is the entire point of adverse ideologies. Also, my lifestyle? WTF are you even talking about? I live in a non-urban part of a southern state and enjoy everything from academic interests to sports to poker. What lifestyle are you even condensing to being "liberal?"

Oh jesus. You ever met a lawyer that seemed to look down on everybody? That would be dissmissive or condescending to anyone that tried to discuss legal matters that wasn't also a lawyer? It's because of people like you. They've run into so many idiots that after a while they just refuse to discuss legal matters with anybody that's not a lawyer. (unless they're getting paid for it. And even then they don't want to have to explain half the shit they're doing.)

Don't take it from me. Ask another fukking lawyer. There's a method to what they do. Every case or contract or proceeding involves the same damn things. Same steps. Same line of thinking. Over and over and over again. Rinse lather repeat. The variables change. The equation doesn't. That's precisely what methodology is.

I guess surgeries aren't methodical because the "CASES change." Gawd damned you are such a fukkin moron.

I never said the cases were all the same, just like I'd never say all books are the same. But you do read all the different books the same fukking way don't you? First page to last. And defending a client is the same damn way. The plots might all be different, but you don't get to the resolution without first going through an introduction, exposition, and climax. (Unless it's a dictionary or reference book. Then the equation changes. Just like between criminal and civil proceedings.) And you don't present a defense (or plea bargain) without first doing the same damn things you do in every other case before it. Dammit why am I wasting my time explaining this to you.

This is the point in a legal proceeding where I'd rest my case. My facts are out there. I don't need to explain them anymore. Some jurors will agree, IE: Most any lawyer. Just ask them the next time you see them: "Would you say there's a methodical process you use to defend your clients?" Some jurors won't agree. IE: you and anyone else that can't translate mathematical logistics into real life scenarios. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think, and I'm sure you don't give a damn what I think, so I guess it's time to go have some milk and cookies. And by that I mean, go suck a lemon.

You're the one that brought up experience dip-shit. Only reason I said anything is because you asked. If I was high and mighty I would have gotten into the specifics of my background from the outset. But I didn't. And the reason I didn't is because I'm not some arrogant asshole that thinks just because I've worked in a law firm or in politics that no one else can have an opinion. I believe ideas are what matters. Not one's "rank." I only bring up "rank" when jackasses like you question the manner or integrity in which such ideas are concieved.

My ideology is that ideologies are for suckers. At least in the present conditions we have. In a perfect world, yeah, I might have an ideology. But ideologies are only successful when everybody that has to abide by that ideology also happens to believe in it. (Or at least have the few that don't believe in it accept it or surrender to it.)

You only want to believe I have an ideology to validate the conception of yours.

Lifestyle: the shelter of the people you've surrounded yourself with, and the professional/social functions you've engaged in that have allowed you to maintain the emotional/philosophical disconnect you do from the rest of everyday America that just wants you to shut the fuk up and leave them alone so they can live in peace without having snot-nosed dipshits with a need to feel special running around telling them what's good for them.

[The Madcap]

Yes, by that definition, both a camp counselor and a adult entertainment actor would be considered jobs. Would you consider them to be "fake"? I'm not sure how many people interpret the definition of "fake", as loosely as you do. If you do a task that requires effort(in any amount), and you are compensated(in any way, ex. self satisfaction, survival, money), you are doing a job. I don't think the relative effort output has anything to do with the validity of the tasks description as a "job".

Obviously any disappointed father talking to his son or a construction worker yelling at some tresspassing hippies to "get a real job" understands that their "non-real jobs" do not exist solely in some ethereal make believe fantasy world where they are paid in fairy dust.

You know exactly what I mean. And so does everybody else.Are you really interested in this semantic bullshit?