Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
5 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

I've never seen a fat doctor, but I've seen fat lawyers. I don't think they're the ones with coke.

Doctors don’t need to get illegal drugs to get high though. 
 

As for lawyers, booze is by far the preferred drug. With coke probably a distant second along with weed. 

Posted
3 hours ago, Anastasis said:

The whole tangent spun up from an off hand comment about contingency based compensation creating conflicts of interest. I think that that is true. I think that every poster here recognizes it as true.

I can tell you with 100% certainty that you are wrong.  See if you can figure out how I know that.

Posted

Dentists have the best coke

also, the dating pool for Rittenhouse is going to SUCK. Whole world thinking you’re  a loser murderer racist at 17 ain’t great. At least Zimmerman already had some strange.

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, JimmyJames said:

You have yet to articulate a single argument that supports this position other than claiming it is obvious and everyone agrees with you when in fact everyone disagrees because everyone besides you seems to know what a conflict of interest is. At this point you are just talking because you like to hear yourself talk.

This will probably get me a time out for doxxing a poster, but fuck it.  I ran into @Anastasis at a West Campus bar tonight, and surreptitiously snapped this:

NOW HOW DO YOU LIKE THEM APPLES - YouTube

Edited by jimmyjazz
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 6
Posted
Pretty funny seeing which of the lawyers here are particularly triggered by a discussion of ethics and financial conflict of interest. 

I mean….other than the fact that nobody here has seen any discussion of any “financial conflict of interest” yet. Your solo ipse dixit declaration isn’t a “discussion.” Embarrassingly inept mental masturbation, yes. Discussion? No.
Posted
10 minutes ago, StassneyHorn said:

Dentists have the best coke

90 percent of dentists under the age of 60 I’ve met seem to be cokeheads.

Present company excepted of course. 

Posted
10 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I can tell you with 100% certainty that you are wrong.

Yes.  I have been told to be over my skis by you and JimmyJames, and Brisket, and wildcat, and DA, and a number of others on a number of occasions, with unflinching conviction, only for you to be demonstrably wrong time and time again. Mostly cause you/y'all are incapable of paying attention. But maybe this time is different. 

Posted (edited)

And Scott Fisher's teeth have never looked better.

His gums though?  Meh...not so much.

Edited by Lobo
Posted
Just now, Anastasis said:

Yes.  I have been told to be over my skis by you and JimmyJames, and Brisket, and wildcat, and DA, and a number of others on a number of occasions, with unflinching conviction, only for you to be demonstrably wrong time and time again. Mostly cause you/y'all are incapable of paying attention. But maybe this time is different. 

God damn you are a fucking easy mark.

Quote

The whole tangent spun up from an off hand comment about contingency based compensation creating conflicts of interest. I think that that is true. I think that every poster here recognizes it as true.

Now, work with me here.  How would I know with 100% certainty that your statement is false?

Posted
5 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I have to admit, it's fascinating to see someone take on any and all comers in a profession that is specifically trained to argue.

Sheriff Ed Tom Bell: These people will kill Anastasis, Carla Jean. They won't quit.
Carla Jean Moss: He won't neither. He never has. Anastasis, he can take all comers.
 
Posted
4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

God damn you are a fucking easy mark.

I think that the post stands well in it's totality. 

 

2 hours ago, TDunk said:

The whole tangent spun up from an off hand comment about contingency based compensation creating conflicts of interest. I think that that is true. I think that every poster here recognizes it as true.  That's why we carve out certain legal proceedings explicitly from such arrangements, because they create obvious ethical conflicts where the ethical principle of Justice is paramount.  Now I guess that if you want to argue that there are a vast majority of legal proceedings where the principle of Justice is not really paramount, or that there are situations where other ethical principles (maybe Automony, Equal access, etc,) should be over weighted, those might be reasonable points to consider.  Seems like Justice should always get a strong shake though, given how closely our society depends on the legal system to effect it.   

 

Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I think that the post stands well in it's totality. 

I think it does nothing of the sort, and I think you have been pantsed, yet again.  But kudos for trying.

 

 

 

Edited by jimmyjazz
speling
Posted
Just now, jimmyjazz said:

I think it does nothing of the sort, and I think you have pantsed, yet again.  But kudos for trying.

Well OK. But you have a poor track record when it comes to judgment, so not particularly worried about it. 

  • Haha 1
Posted
Just now, Anastasis said:

Well OK. But you have a poor track record when it comes to judgment, so not particularly worried about it. 

Perhaps.  It beats having a dismal track record when it comes to recognizing that one has lost an argument.

Posted
1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

Perhaps.  It beats having a dismal track record when it comes to recognizing that one has lost an argument.

“No, you are!”

 

pretty fucking compelling 

Posted

The young man should walk, and I'm totally fine with trusting the jury.  I hope Kenosha feels the same way.  Hope 35% of our nation feels the same way about other cases.  

But let's be honest...it's a bummer he won't serve any jail time because the care packages/letters sent to him by Johnny Sack and Anastasis would have been epic.

Posted
I've never seen a fat doctor, but I've seen fat lawyers. I don't think they're the ones with coke.

Then you’re as clueless there as you are in other areas
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
1 minute ago, C-Man said:


Then you’re as clueless there as you are in other areas

My neurologist is fat as fuck and basically worthless. She only does telehealth encounters now, so gonna be interesting to see how that neurological assessment actually works out. 

Posted
1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

You are so far over your skis on this it ain’t even funny.

 

55 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

As for lawyers, booze is by far the preferred drug. With coke probably a distant second along with weed. 

your honor, if i may…

Posted
22 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

My neurologist is fat as fuck and basically worthless. She only does telehealth encounters now, so gonna be interesting to see how that neurological assessment actually works out. 

Based on the last 2 pages, I’m a bit intrigued as well. 

  • Haha 4
Posted
3 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Based on the last 2 pages, I’m a bit intrigued as well. 

Just a formality, plugging the CPAP into the reader every couple years.

 

Not like a real life JimmyJames' parents make him wear a helmet every time he goes outside neurological assessment. 

Posted (edited)

Ana is demonstrating what may be occurring in the jury room, with Ana portraying what negative jury nullification looks like when deliberating.

For a dramatic glimpse at positive jury nullification, see 12 Angry Men, with Henry Fonda using the threat of jury nullification. He encourages other jurors to ignore the mob (in and outside the jury deliberation room).

Juries play the vital role in the delivery of criminal justice. 

If a juror wants to bring home jury instructions, that's a good sign they are doing homework and reading the material the night before so deliberations pick up the next day. Smart. I am surprised it was allowed, but the judge appears to have trust in this jury. 

On to the movies . . .

 

Edited by washparkhorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

THIS IS A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE!!!

I mean this thread, now.  It’s kinda about justice, but mostly it’s a dead fetus stinking up the place.  You all are arguing legal ethics with a fence post.  Its not going to change its mind.

Posted
6 hours ago, Goredho said:

 You all are arguing legal ethics with a fence post.  Its not going to change its mind.

Nah, I think just a couple more posts and he’ll see the light. Almost there. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Posted
8 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Nah, I think just a couple more posts and he’ll see the light. Almost there. 

Maybe he'll see the it if you light him on fire.   Otherwise, nope.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

I think our forefathers were all for 17 year old kids with guns protecting their communities and themselves when they wrote the 2nd admendment in the Constitution...In fact, situations like that were probably really fresh on their mind at the time they were writing it.

Based on what I saw in the trial, I don't think the prosecution even came close to proving beyond a reasonable doubt this was anything other than self defense.  Not sure what is taking the jury so long to come back with a verdict.

Posted
4 minutes ago, Azbadlands said:

Not sure what is taking the jury so long to come back with a verdict.

Maybe it's because after sitting through the entire trial they disagree with you. 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 3
Posted
4 minutes ago, South Austin said:

Maybe it's because after sitting through the entire trial they disagree with you. 

You might be right, Or, maybe, due to how our society works today, they fear the repurcussions of setting this kid free even if they feel he is not guilty, which should not be part of the decision making...

Posted
10 minutes ago, Azbadlands said:

I think our forefathers were all for 17 year old kids with guns protecting their communities and themselves when they wrote the 2nd admendment in the Constitution...In fact, situations like that were probably really fresh on their mind at the time they were writing it.

Name one such situation. 

Posted

Is the jury also looking at lesser charges? Maybe they're going over the same evidence as it relates to each charge and taking their time to see if any fit. Maybe? 

Posted
9 minutes ago, South Austin said:

I wonder if the traffic on this and the DT thread would be lower if we didn't suck so bad at football.

If Sark posted here, which thread would he post on?

Posted
3 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Name one such situation. 

A lot of young people died defending their communities from Tyrrany in the Revolutionary War  that had just ended in 1783, just a few short years before the Constitution was signed..

Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Name one such situation. 

At least two situations.

First, the more recent American Revolution, which followed the British government's attempt to disarm the colonists.

Second, the British legal history's own support of citizen militias.

I say this as someone who does not believe that the founders intended for an unconditional and unregulated right to bear arms.

Edited by South Austin
Posted
I think our forefathers were all for 17 year old kids with guns protecting their communities and themselves when they wrote the 2nd admendment in the Constitution...In fact, situations like that were probably really fresh on their mind at the time they were writing it.
Based on what I saw in the trial, I don't think the prosecution even came close to proving beyond a reasonable doubt this was anything other than self defense.  Not sure what is taking the jury so long to come back with a verdict.

They were actually more concerned about slave uprisings than a new tyrannical government, so same same.
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...