Jump to content

Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty

Cairn Horn88

By Cairn Horn88
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 28.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

HillCountryBevo
HillCountryBevo

Imagine your basis of hating Trump is because of mean tweets, January 6 and “hush money” trial all because liberal media is crooked. Fuck right off. This is my last post in this forum  dumb fucki

Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand
Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand

When you're a court, you just grab their asset, and they let you do it!

HillCountryBevo
HillCountryBevo

Bye bitch. Enjoy living in literal hell if your man Biden is re elected

Posted Images

C-Man

C-Man 27239

Posted
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Yes and yes.  I was the one who told you to check with Resy (or Open Table whatever they use for their online reservations) to update for a better time.

The key to a Negroni isn't aging it so much IMO but the brand of sweet vermouth.  Carpano Antica makes ALL the difference.  If I'm in a new (to me) bar or restaurant I'll ask what they have.  If no Carpano Antica (or comparable) I'll order something else.

Also, lots of bartenders don't measure out the components, which can make a huge difference in the taste.  Too much gin or Campari will ruin the drink.  You can go a little heavy on the vermouth (which has a similar effect as aging it I suspect).

Also this time of year I'll sometimes opt for a Boulevardier (but only if they pour with Rye) or what I call an Irish Negroni (swap Irish Whiskey for Gin).  Gives the drink a slightly softer and warmer flavor.

Last thought about aging in an oak barrel is that you're going to want to keep that somewhere cool/refrigerator temperature.  Vermouth is like wine.  Once opened you need to refrigerate it or it will go stale pretty quickly.  

 

Good info on the barrel. Maybe I shouldn't have got the 2-liter to make sure it fits in our garage fridge. Oh well. Most of the online aging recipes I've seen for the Negroni don't mention keeping the vermouth cool. One I found said age it for at most a month or so and then run it through a coffee filter into a container that can be kept (and refrigerated) indefinitely.

I assume they're using Carpano Antica at Triozzi? Can I readily find it at Spec's or Pogo's or Total Wine? I was going to sneak out to pick up some campari and vermouth this afternoon. (EDIT: Looked at the menu and it appears they use Cocchi di Torino.)

Edited by C-Man
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DDD Dad

DDD Dad 14346

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, C-Man said:

Good info on the barrel. Maybe I shouldn't have got the 2-liter to make sure it fits in our garage fridge. Oh well. Most of the online aging recipes I've seen for the Negroni don't mention keeping the vermouth cool. One I found said age it for at most a month or so and then run it through a coffee filter into a container that can be kept (and refrigerated) indefinitely.

I assume they're using Carpano Antica at Triozzi? Can I readily find it at Spec's or Pogo's or Total Wine? I was going to sneak out to pick up some campari and vermouth this afternoon. (EDIT: Looked at the menu and it appears they use Cocchi di Torino.)

I know they carry it at Total Wine.  I can't recall if they have it at Spec's or Sigel's.  Medallion in Lakewood (on Live Oak at Skillman) has the best price in town by a lot (I think it's under or around $40 for the 1 L size) and the 750ml is at least that much most everywhere else.  Just don't buy all of them out from under me. :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gatorubet

Gatorubet 30274

Posted
Posted (edited)
51 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I think that's a great example of what I'm talking about. The actions of Enron execs put them in prison and destroyed their company along with billions of dollars in shareholder value. The financial crisis caused huge, wholesale changes in the regulatory environment and severely punished whole economies, While at the individual level many of those who benefit from special treatment thanks to the duty owed to them by their counsel and social ties to power got away with their actions (see below), we mostly correctly attribute guilt to the guilty and largely shame those who deserve it. 

Couldn't we argue that January 6th and its attendant violence was a result of and enabled by legal chicanery? But more to the point, can't we see how that chicanery undermines the law?  Part of why I keep saying the legal profession is in ethical crisis is because it can't seem to reckon with the duty of care it owes to itself. In other words, it struggles to fully accept the role legal professional standards play in the crucial function of the courts and the administrative function of the law, which after all is what civilized societies rely on in place of violence. Undermine it, and we are left with what? Force majeure?

Let me give you a counter example of what I mean and respond to @TwiceHorn about the "higher standard" you both likely take issue to. I mentioned I worked for an industrial giant, and we did business in every country in the world where we were not prohibited from doing it by legal sanction, which takes you to some pretty uncivilized places, many dealing with the transition to a market economy. We built factories, we sold product, and the normal course of business in some of those places involves the enrichment of officials high and low, not to mention unofficials. Doing business in the local manner was undoubtedly in the best interest of our shareholders. Nevertheless, we not only required all employees, in the United States and elsewhere, to adhere to the laws of the United States and our own standards of business conduct even when it increased costs, slowed down projects, or prevented deals altogether. Not only that, but we put independent whistleblower mechanisms in place and used them, and punished bad actors swiftly, including very senior, high performing executives.  Call it risk management, call it reputation management and question the motives all you want.  I'm not saying that corporations don't do things that are bad for society. But mostly they avoid doing things that are bad for business. At the professional level, most big companies and every outfit I've ever been a part of has a set of clear ethical standards and hiding behind the best interests of shareholders has never been even an acceptable excuse, let alone good reason to violate them or do business the wrong way. 
 

Congrats, you being able to work for the unicorn company.  But like the guy who says there is no global warming because it’s snowing at my house, you’re very valid individual experience does not transfer to how the rest of the world works.    But no Snark, I can see how your very laudatory company’s ethics and culture bring you to a worldview where you think that is the norm and that lawyers are the outliers.

Edited by Gatorubet
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31512

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, gernblansten said:

Look, you just have to understand that everyone knows who is guilty and who is not and the lawyers just screw it all up with the Constitution and ethics and stuff.  The non-lawyers should just be able to post about how clear everything is on a centralized message board so the criminal can go straight from booking to prison or lethal injection or set free after fingerprinting. The non-lawyers are really the only ones who see through the bullshit and get it right. You see people released from prison decades after the lawyers and judges wrongfully convict. If we're not going to do the centralized message board thing, we should at least let some reasonable number of non-lawyers listen to the actual evidence and decide guilty or not guilty. That way the correct decision will always be made and innocent people won't spend decades behind bars.    

Well done.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Original Greaser Bob

The Original Greaser Bob 2844

Posted
Posted

I don't think it would be a great system but you certainly could structure it so that there are two advocates who owe primary duty to some pre-defined definition of justice or truth.

The potential for collusion and injustice and the death of truth in such a system would be greater than the current system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bozo_Casanova

Bozo_Casanova 26510

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Gatorubet said:

Congrats, you being able to work for the unicorn company.  But like the guy who says there is no global warming because it’s snowing at my house, you’re very valid individual experience does not transfer to how the rest of the world works.    But no Snark, I can see how your very laudatory company’s ethics and culture bring you to a worldview where you think that is the norm and that lawyers are the outliers.


After 25 years of doing business all over the world in multiple industries I appreciate a lawyer educating me about business norms, so thank you, but, and I hate to break this to you,  it is the norm. You just work at the wrong end of things. Generally, businesses and business people are protective of the business environment. In other words, you’re working with the unicorns. That’s why this seems weird. 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 46000

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I hate to break this to you, but it is the norm. You just work at the wrong end of things. Generally, businesses and business people are protective of the business environment. In other words, you’re working with the unicorns. That’s why this seems weird. 

Yup.  I remember when the startup I co-founded went public, and we were all dealing with stock selling plans and whatnot.  I made some flippant comment in a meeting and the CFO looked at me and said "I don't think you'd look very good in stripes".  Point taken.  We tried very hard to toe the line in all business practices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TexasEd

TexasEd 8067

Posted
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, DDD Dad said:

Counterpoint—You cannot suborn perjury and owe a duty of candor to the court. 

This is the subject of most of DJT's legal woes.  He lies constantly regardless of oath.

  • I didn't steal anything from the Whitehouse, those TS/SCI papers are my personal effects
  • I didn't tell those people to go to the capitol and make Mike Pence do the right thing
  • No, there really was election fraud, I'll give you the evidence in two weeks
  • I did not orchestrate a plan to overturn a free and fair election and insert myself as a dictator

All of these things are observable.  We have video, audio, multiple witness testimony, tweets, texts, and expert witnesses all agreeing that all of those things happened, he knew it was against the law but because he not only believed the law does not apply to him but because his fucked up sociopathic mindset puts himself first above everything else he is compelled to do it.   No restraint at all.

 

Edited by TexasEd
  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GenXer

GenXer 2896

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, DDD Dad said:

Yes and yes.  I was the one who told you to check with Resy (or Open Table whatever they use for their online reservations) to update for a better time.

The key to a Negroni isn't aging it so much IMO but the brand of sweet vermouth.  Carpano Antica makes ALL the difference.  If I'm in a new (to me) bar or restaurant I'll ask what they have.  If no Carpano Antica (or comparable) I'll order something else.

Also, lots of bartenders don't measure out the components, which can make a huge difference in the taste.  Too much gin or Campari will ruin the drink.  You can go a little heavy on the vermouth (which has a similar effect as aging it I suspect).

Also this time of year I'll sometimes opt for a Boulevardier (but only if they pour with Rye) or what I call an Irish Negroni (swap Irish Whiskey for Gin).  Gives the drink a slightly softer and warmer flavor.

Last thought about aging in an oak barrel is that you're going to want to keep that somewhere cool/refrigerator temperature.  Vermouth is like wine.  Once opened you need to refrigerate it or it will go stale pretty quickly.  

 

Do you have a gin preference?

I’m not a gin drinker but I suppose Tanqueray is the standard. I tried Esme gin and noticed a not insignificant flavor difference. Also, Tanqueray has 7% more ABV than Esme.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
G650

G650 14272

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, GenXer said:

Do you have a gin preference?

I’m not a gin drinker but I suppose Tanqueray is the standard. I tried Esme gin and noticed a not insignificant flavor difference. Also, Tanqueray has 7% more ABV than Esme.

For a Negroni I wouldn't use Tanqueray. I'm sure DDD will chime in with his picks, but ive always found Gunpowder Gin and Anitca the best combination. Something like Junipero or Aviation could be good as well. The London dry gins are a little too bland for a Negroni in my experience

Edited by G650
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TexasEd

TexasEd 8067

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, gernblansten said:

Look, you just have to understand that everyone knows who is guilty and who is not and the lawyers just screw it all up with the Constitution and ethics and stuff.  The non-lawyers should just be able to post about how clear everything is on a centralized message board so the criminal can go straight from booking to prison or lethal injection or set free after fingerprinting. The non-lawyers are really the only ones who see through the bullshit and get it right. You see people released from prison decades after the lawyers and judges wrongfully convict. If we're not going to do the centralized message board thing, we should at least let some reasonable number of non-lawyers listen to the actual evidence and decide guilty or not guilty. That way the correct decision will always be made and innocent people won't spend decades behind bars.    

image.thumb.png.5499716b1ae6062148c1cb04e48b3b35.png

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dcbc

dcbc 14496

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I think that's a great example of what I'm talking about. The actions of Enron execs put them in prison and destroyed their company along with billions of dollars in shareholder value. The financial crisis caused huge, wholesale changes in the regulatory environment and severely punished whole economies, While at the individual level many of those who benefit from special treatment thanks to the duty owed to them by their counsel and social ties to power got away with their actions (see below), we mostly correctly attribute guilt to the guilty and largely shame those who deserve it. 

Couldn't we argue that January 6th and its attendant violence was a result of and enabled by legal chicanery? But more to the point, can't we see how that chicanery undermines the law?  Part of why I keep saying the legal profession is in ethical crisis is because it can't seem to reckon with the duty of care it owes to itself. In other words, it struggles to fully accept the role legal professional standards play in the crucial function of the courts and the administrative function of the law, which after all is what civilized societies rely on in place of violence. Undermine it, and we are left with what? Force majeure?

Let me give you a counter example of what I mean and respond to @TwiceHorn about the "higher standard" you both likely take issue to. I mentioned I worked for an industrial giant, and we did business in every country in the world where we were not prohibited from doing it by legal sanction, which takes you to some pretty uncivilized places, many dealing with the transition to a market economy. We built factories, we sold product, and the normal course of business in some of those places involves the enrichment of officials high and low, not to mention unofficials. Doing business in the local manner was undoubtedly in the best interest of our shareholders. Nevertheless, we not only required all employees, in the United States and elsewhere, to adhere to the laws of the United States and our own standards of business conduct even when it increased costs, slowed down projects, or prevented deals altogether. Not only that, but we put independent whistleblower mechanisms in place and used them, and punished bad actors swiftly, including very senior, high performing executives.  Call it risk management, call it reputation management and question the motives all you want.  I'm not saying that corporations don't do things that are bad for society. But mostly they avoid doing things that are bad for business. At the professional level, most big companies and every outfit I've ever been a part of has a set of clear ethical standards and hiding behind the best interests of shareholders has never been even an acceptable excuse, let alone good reason to violate them or do business the wrong way. 
 

I don't necessarily take issue with much of that outside of it as a generalization of all lawyers.  See my edit above with the Venn diagram involving greedy fucks and the shady lawyers who enable them.  But I recognize that there can be representation of defendants who are accused of many wrongs by lawyers who act within the confines of the law so that due process is served.  I think most of what you're saying could be directed at the punishment mechanism within the state bar (and other state's bars).  But at the same time, I get the tight position criminal lawyers face when representing criminal defendants.  Not suborning perjury, for instance, doesn't mean running to the prosecution if you come across evidence implicating your client.  But you are prevented from putting your client on the stand and eliciting from him/her testimony when you know that testimony will be false.  I get that it seems like the lawyer is in cahoots with the defendant at this point, but it's a balancing act to serve the right of the accused to counsel under the Constitution.   The prosecution is responsible for proving its case, not the defendant or his lawyer.  But as TwiceHorn put it, what if it were you who were accused and needed a lawyer?  We law-abiding citizens have to stomach what we know in our hearts doesn't pass the smell test for this reason.  So I'm with him on that part and with representation where the lawyers can do so without running afoul of the law.  

Edited by dcbc
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bozo_Casanova

Bozo_Casanova 26510

Posted
Posted
28 minutes ago, dcbc said:

But as TwiceHorn put it, what if it were you who were accused and needed a lawyer?

Exactly! Who amongst us have not (checks notes) … enlisted our lawyers as accomplices to an effort to deprive a witness against us of their parental rights in an unrelated divorce case?

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105180

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:


After 25 years of doing business all over the world in multiple industries I appreciate a lawyer educating me about business norms, so thank you, but, and I hate to break this to you,  it is the norm. You just work at the wrong end of things. Generally, businesses and business people are protective of the business environment. In other words, you’re working with the unicorns. That’s why this seems weird. 

Or....and follow me here....companies that toe the line and do stuff the right way very rarely need attorneys to handle sticky situations for them (or at least, corporate-scale sticky situations).  And the other side of that coin is that attorneys who deal with corporations that get in trouble....are dealing with the kind of corporations that do shit that gets them in trouble.  So, of the relevant sample -- corporations that end up in court rooms defending their conduct -- the percentage of bad actors is WAY higher than the percentage of bad actors in the pool of all corporations.

Kind of like how family lawyers spend very, very, very little time working with successful, functional families, and firemen have very, very few calls to rush to houses that are not on fire.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BamaATL

BamaATL 16593

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Is Dotard there?

Apparently he skinned out about 20 minutes ago, according to the live blog anyway.  

So over/under $100 Million?

Edited by BamaATL
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31512

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Generally, yes. 

Here, though, they didn't have to decide any sticky issues of liability, where it might just be easier to punt and come back quickly with a take-nothing verdict.

Here, they just had to do some math, or, more accurately decide to pick a number that had already been calculated by experts.

(I know you know this, just elaborating for the peanut gallery).

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dcbc

dcbc 14496

Posted
Posted
Exactly! Who amongst us have not (checks notes) … enlisted our lawyers as accomplices to an effort to deprive a witness against us of their parental rights in an unrelated divorce case?
 
Who haven't?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...