| August 25th, 2004 05:15 PM |
|
|
| The_Worst |
Talk about political correctness gone out of control...
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=597&e=19&u=/nm/autos_gm_ad_dc |
| August 26th, 2004 03:10 AM |
|
|
| UGot2Rollme |
sounds like a cool ad - wish I'd seen it |
| August 26th, 2004 06:49 AM |
|
|
| Jumping Jack |
All US lawyers should be rounded up and hauled off to Guantanamo to be held with the other terrorists for crimes against humanity. I would favor running them over with a C6 with JJF playing in the CD changer! |
| August 26th, 2004 08:35 PM |
|
|
| Trey Krimsin |
How fucking anal do you have to be?!?!?!
It's an ad depicting a fantasy. These protesters need to get over themselves. |
| August 26th, 2004 08:40 PM |
|
|
| LadyJane |
quote:
Jumping Jack wrote:
All US lawyers should be rounded up and hauled off to Guantanamo to be held with the other terrorists for crimes against humanity. I would favor running them over with a C6 with JJF playing in the CD changer!
Now, now JJF...you must add a disclaimer...All lawyers, EXCEPT RO's finest. You are talking about an impressive list...jb, sirmoonie, nankerphelge, SIA and Fiji Joe to name a few. Well I guess SIA is safe..he's from Australia.
On topic...the ad was cool. Howe ridiculous to have it yanked.
LJ. |
| August 26th, 2004 09:18 PM |
|
|
| parmeda |
*sniff*, *sniff*...*sniff*
I smell the FCC. |
| August 26th, 2004 09:46 PM |
|
|
| stonedinaustralia |
thanks for the kind words LJ 
while i'm definitely not one for PC thinking there is some merit in the stance and i speak as a parent of a 17 & 19 year old - i don't know about everywhere else but here teenagers can get a license to drive unsupervised at age 17 and (in part from personal experience)young men at that age generally consider themselves indestructable and for whom the dividing line between fantasy and reality can definitely be a little blurred the last thing they need to see is glorification of irresponsible driving - not that my lads would be that stupid (as most parents would say)but it's the others on the road or those with whom they may get a lift that cause me concern
speaking as a lawyer with some experience in motor vehicle accident claims the damage done and the lives lost through stupidity and negilgence on the roads is tragic and comes at a great cost to the victims, their families and society in general and should be avoided at all costs
jumpin jack I notice you have a real beef with lawyers - this isn't the first time you've had a go at them (us) - well given that the alternative is no lawyers which by extension means no laws i take it you feel you would have no problem surviving if the "law of the jungle" prevailed - speaking for myself i would hesitate to be so confident |
| August 26th, 2004 09:52 PM |
|
|
| corgi37 |
Q: Where would the world be without lawyers?
A: Happy.
I WAS indestructable at 17-19. I wrote off 3 cars in my life, and the worst damage i scored was a fractured nose (which i played up on and scored a week off work).
Despite playing football for 15 years, getting pissed virtually every week, and even having a few brawls, i've never even broken a bone.
Kids will be kids. SIA, good luck with yours! My step kids are 11, and are such a hand-full. My babies, just turned 2, are even worse! At least at your kids age, you can sort of reason with them.
Well, they are teens, but i guess you can try!
I cant reason with my 2 year old boy to stop using my remote control for my $3,500 receiver as a battering ram on my wifes 100 year old crystal set she inherited from her great-grandmother.
Then again, i guess when i was 17-19, i acted like a 2 year old as well.
Ahh parenting. God's punishment for us being young once. |
| August 26th, 2004 10:06 PM |
|
|
| Soldatti |
Good post Corgi!
[Edited by Soldatti] |
| August 26th, 2004 10:17 PM |
|
|
| stonedinaustralia |
quote:
corgi37 wrote:
I WAS indestructable at 17-19.
or perhaps just fortunate - life hangs by a thread at every moment
i take your point 'kids will be kids" - was once one myself and considered myself indestructable too - looking back i could have come unstuck many times but i too was lucky |
| August 26th, 2004 11:13 PM |
|
|
| parmeda |
quote:
corgi37 wrote:
I cant reason with my 2 year old boy to stop using my remote control for my $3,500 receiver as a battering ram on my wifes 100 year old crystal set she inherited from her great-grandmother.
corgi...do you realize that my heart just skipped a beat!
My home is filled with antiques.
I have 2 sons.
Excuse me, I have 2 "bulls-in-a-china-shop"...just had to clearify that.
And yes, YOU CAN reason with a 2 year old.
There ARE ways, lol.
|
| August 27th, 2004 05:22 AM |
|
|
| Jumping Jack |
It does make you wonder who is being billed for the time the RO lawyers spend on this board.
Perhaps someone can enlighten me why the US needs 6-7 times more attorneys per capita than all other civilized nations and how we are better off for it.
[Edited by Jumping Jack] |
| August 27th, 2004 09:39 AM |
|
|
| nankerphelge |
Well one reason we need so many lawyers is because the US is a very legalistic (not just litigious) society -- that is, our government(s) crank out more new laws every year than any other country.
We have the federal, state, county, and municipal legislatures all passing new laws. We also have federal, state, county and municipal administrative agencies that make laws which we all must follow as well. We also have federal, state, county, and municipal court systems that put out decisions that impact those legislative and adminsitrative laws (usually because many of them are poorly written because they weren't written by lawyers in the first place).
Like the new DC hands-free cell phone law that just went into effect. I don't get it -- is that law really necessary? I see more people distracted from their driving by picking their noses than I do from cell phones -- I would imagine soon we'll have a hands-free nose picking statute on the books.
And radios and kids are more of a distraction than a cell phone. Maybe we should pass a law that says the driver of a car must be locked in a small vault in the car that has no other sensory stimulation other than those that are driving related. But wait -- what if they get bored in there? Isn't that the car company's fault -- that's negligence or perhaps a defect in the design of the car.
Don't get me wrong -- I dislike many of the lawyers I work with -- but not because they are lawyers -- because they are just not good people -- they were likely idiots long before they got the law degree.
But I also know plenty of lawyers that are good people -- just making a living like anyone else. And many of them forego the big bucks and do things to try and change the system for the better. My firm does patent work -- but we also do pro bono for people in DC that need help with child custody or landlords or whatever. They don't have to do it -- they choose to do it. So you can bad-mouth "all lawyers" like so many others -- but you may need one some day -- and you might find yourself stuck with a bad one when you could have used a good one!
|
| August 27th, 2004 09:41 AM |
|
|
| egon |
Thanks for that nank. now... get your ass into the drinking thread! |
| August 27th, 2004 02:32 PM |
|
|
| Nasty Habits |
Who do you think is running Congress? Farmers? Engineers? Teachers? Businessmen? No, my friends. Congress is run by lawyers. A lawyer is trained for two things and two things only. To clarify - that's one. And to confuse - that's the other thing...Did you ever ask a lawyer the time of day? He told you how to make a watch, didn't he? Ever ask a lawyer how to get to Mr. Jones' house in the country? You got lost, didn't you? Congress is composed of five hundred and thirty-five individuals. Two hundred and eighty-eight are lawyers. And you wonder what's wrong in Congress. No wonder, we often know how to make a watch, but we don't know the time of day.
Courtesty Hal Phillip Walker, campaign for the Replacement Party.
vote Hal!
|
| August 27th, 2004 02:45 PM |
|
|
| sirmoonie |
Chicks dig lawyers! |
| August 27th, 2004 04:48 PM |
|
|
| jb |
quote:
sirmoonie wrote:
Chicks dig lawyers!
Whats with you? Gas? |
| August 30th, 2004 02:43 PM |
|
|
| Ten Thousand Motels |
quote:
nankerphelge wrote:
Well one reason we need so many lawyers is because the US is a very legalistic (not just litigious) society -- that is, our government(s) crank out more new laws every year than any other country.
Yeah, we need to send people to Washington to start repealing laws for sure. But I wouldn't hold my breath waiting. |
| August 30th, 2004 02:48 PM |
|
|
| jb |
Plus the average penis size for lawyers is 8.33 inches... |
| August 30th, 2004 02:55 PM |
|
|
| Ten Thousand Motels |
quote:
jb wrote:
Plus the average penis size for lawyers is 8.33 inches...
What's the average ball size for a politician? Very few will even remotely tell it like it is. Most of them still think " being tuff' is blowing things up. |
| August 30th, 2004 03:03 PM |
|
|
| jb |
You're very funny Motherbaby!!! |
| August 30th, 2004 03:23 PM |
|
|
| jpenn11 |
quote:
Jumping Jack wrote:
Perhaps someone can enlighten me why the US needs 6-7 times more attorneys per capita than all other civilized nations and how we are better off for it.
[Edited by Jumping Jack]
First, the article did not mention lawyers: it mentioned safety groups (Consumers Union, Public Citizen, Center for Auto Safety, Consumer Federation of America and Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety). While some of these organizations may be fronts for plaintiff lawyers, Consumers Union has a fairly good reputation for neutrality (unless of course your company's product has received an inferior rating).
Second, some of the reasons for so many lawyers include:
-protection of civil liberties that virtually all other countries do not have
-prosecuting and defending against some of the most extensive and complex criminal laws in the world
-probably 6-7x more plaintiffs who want to litigate and hire lawyers. (For example, most states allow a couple to divorce without a lawyer. That a couple ends up in litigation rather than with an amicable settlement handled by a neutral overseer is likely to be the desire of one or both of the parties, and not decided by the lawyer either hires.)
There are lots of other reasons, but are we better off for it? Better off than what? I'm not sure I'd rather have some lawyers I know manufacturing our cars rather than doing what they do. |
| August 30th, 2004 03:39 PM |
|
|
| jb |
quote:
jpenn11 wrote:
First, the article did not mention lawyers: it mentioned safety groups (Consumers Union, Public Citizen, Center for Auto Safety, Consumer Federation of America and Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety). While some of these organizations may be fronts for plaintiff lawyers, Consumers Union has a fairly good reputation for neutrality (unless of course your company's product has received an inferior rating).
Second, some of the reasons for so many lawyers include:
-protection of civil liberties that virtually all other countries do not have
-prosecuting and defending against some of the most extensive and complex criminal laws in the world
-probably 6-7x more plaintiffs who want to litigate and hire lawyers. (For example, most states allow a couple to divorce without a lawyer. That a couple ends up in litigation rather than with an amicable settlement handled by a neutral overseer is likely to be the desire of one or both of the parties, and not decided by the lawyer either hires.)
There are lots of other reasons, but are we better off for it? Better off than what? I'm not sure I'd rather have some lawyers I know manufacturing our cars rather than doing what they do.
Lawyers know how to perform cunninglus better than laymen... |
| August 30th, 2004 06:03 PM |
|
|
| egon |
quote:
parmeda wrote:
And yes, YOU CAN reason with a 2 year old.
There ARE ways, lol.
you just take a rolled up newspaper, and... |
| August 30th, 2004 06:17 PM |
|
|
| sirmoonie |
Why do they hate us, Josh? Are they jealous of our freedoms? |
| August 31st, 2004 01:22 AM |
|
|
| parmeda |
quote:
egon wrote:
you just take a rolled up newspaper, and...
...make sure the end is duck-taped, therefore making the distinct "BIFF" sound upon direct contact. |
| August 31st, 2004 01:32 AM |
|
|
| beer |
quote:
jb wrote:
Plus the average penis size for lawyers is 8.33 inches...
Does that reflect on the "Hung Jury?' |
| August 31st, 2004 05:16 AM |
|
|
| Jumping Jack |
Now I know why lawyers are referred to as BIG PRICKS! Thank you for explaining it to me.
JB is a great man and the #1 Stones Fan.
Bring back MT.
Is it true the Beatles were all less than average in size and Macca is under 6 inches which is why he is know as a little prick? |
CHAT
ROOM aka THE FUN HOUSE] [
RESTROOMS]