- pjorourke
- 07-19-2010, 09:29 AM
Charles is projecting again
- atlcomedy
- 07-19-2010, 10:01 AM
Actually, all it takes to be a juror is to be a registered voter and be selected to sit on the jury.Nominated for dumbest post of 2010. (And you are a lawyer, yourself, Tudor? Wow!)
TTH's description of those that sit on his juries sound like their political viewpoints are much like those of CM, RK, PJ and others on this Board. If they are returning Plaintiffs' verdicts, I can only assume that TTH's cases and arguments would have persuaded the conservatives on this Board. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005
- Texas Contrarian
- 07-19-2010, 10:08 AM
TTH's description of those that sit on his juries sound like their political viewpoints are much like those of CM, RK, PJ and others on this Board. If they are returning Plaintiffs' verdicts, I can only assume that TTH's cases and arguments would have persuaded the conservatives on this Board. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005What a bizarre comment.
Would you care to explain how that makes sense on any level?
Actually, all it takes to be a juror is to be a registered voter and be selected to sit on the jury. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005Yeah, but the key lies in who survives the jury selection process. Do you seriously believe that TTH wouldn't quickly decide during voir dire to peremptorily strike me, PJ, or RK?
- Guest030911
- 07-19-2010, 11:02 AM
- pjorourke
- 07-19-2010, 12:29 PM
Yeah, but the key lies in who survives the jury selection process. Do you seriously believe that TTH wouldn't quickly decide during voir dire to peremptorily strike me, PJ, or RK? Originally Posted by CaptainMidnightHell yes! You think any of us have so little value to our time that we would sit around and listen to TTH's bullshit for a week?
- TexTushHog
- 07-20-2010, 12:26 AM
In other words, ignorant racists are perfectly OK if the utilization of their perceived grievances is the only way a plaintiff's attorney can conduct the successful shakedown of a large company or wealthy individual. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnightNo where close to the only way. Just one of many. Frankly corporations are the easiest targets out there. Usually like shooting fish in a barrel compared to prevailing against individuals. Plus, they regularly do such stupid and helpful things.
Yeah, but the key lies in who survives the jury selection process. Do you seriously believe that TTH wouldn't quickly decide during voir dire to peremptorily strike me, PJ, or RK? Originally Posted by CaptainMidnightDepends on your occupation and on your income. We usually only have two or three jurors with a college education on a jury -- usually a school teacher or two. Almost never anybody making over $30 or $35,000 a year. If you fit in that range, I might or might not strike you. White males over 50 are the group second most likely to be struck by plaintiffs. But if you are a male with a college degree, or make $40,000 or more, you're almost certainly not going to be on a jury panel in most of the counties in which I practice most often.
Plus, it depends on the kind of case. I do work other than personal injury work. Conservatives make great plaintiffs jurors on some kinds of cases, like patent cases. You believe in strong property rights; think patents are valuable; don't like people who infringe on your property; and if you make over $70,000 in a rural area --extremely rare out here, but the Defendant's don't know enough to cut them -- you're not afraid of big numbers.
- nevergaveitathought
- 07-20-2010, 06:17 AM
merely blithely continue on
- Laurentius
- 07-20-2010, 07:51 AM
Unlike the Swastika, which -- though representing the Sunwheel of pre-Christian Europe -- has ONLY been used in support of hate-filled causes since long before I was born; the Confederate Flag has a more ambiguous history -- having been used to support a variety of causes ranging from States' rights to personal liberty in addition to its use as a hateful symbol.
Of course, its use as a hateful symbol, or its perception as same, is largely based, IMO, on a version of history promulgated by the victors; and that version of history is that the South was all about slavery and that the North was all about freedom.
I am not going to get into the details of the historical inaccuracies -- please read the books by William and Mary professor Ludwell H. Johnson for greater detail. I will simply summarize.
The South had a culture and an understanding of liberty that was radically different from the North. It was agrarian, Jeffersonian and Aristotelian; whereas the North was mercantilistic, Hamiltonian and Platonic. The South felt that its liberty was being threatened by the Federal union, and sought escape.
Yes, slavery was an issue there. A horrible and nasty issue. It was a big enough issue to have been specifically mentioned in the articles of secession voted on by various state legislatures.
BUT -- the most bloody war ever fought by the U.S. was NOT fought over slavery. As Lincoln made clear, his goal was to preserve the Federal union -- and if he could do so by maintaining slavery, it would be maintained; or, if by abolishing slavery -- it would be abolished. In his zeal to preserve the Union as a corporate entity he even imprisoned dissidents in the North who disagreed with his program. He was no libertarian.
In the wake of the War between the States, the last real balance on the unchecked power of the Federal government was removed. As Jefferson and Madison both pointed out (in the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions against the Alien and Sedition Acts respectively); the Federal government cannot be the sole arbiter of the Constitutionality of its own actions simply by using three different branches of its own body as a smoke-and-mirror separation of powers. But the War between the States left the Federal government as the sole arbiter of the extent of its own authority.
When those who believe our government is too large, too expensive, too intrusive, too abusive, too imperialistic and more complain -- they need look no further for the causation than the fact that the War between the States removed the last effectual check on Federal power. Now, the States -- originally intended to be sovereign protectors of our liberty -- are little more than administrative units of the Federal monster. All it takes, now, for the Federal government to have ANY authority is for 5 members of the Supreme Court to SAY it does.
Yes, slavery was ended in that war. And that is inarguably a good thing. But its ending was incidental to the conduct of the war -- a war for the assertion of federal power and for the destruction of agrarianism. And, paradoxically, while direct slavery was ended; I am quite certain that had the War had a different outcome or even not been fought at all; I would not be working for the government for free (i.e. slavery using a non-obvious velvet manacle) until May every year before being allowed to keep the product of my own sweat and ingenuity.
Look, today, and be honest. Is the family who has been cleverly and deliberately trapped in a cycle of welfare dependency, whose children are forced into a government education system against their will, and then feels compelled to vote in certain ways in order to prevent their own starvation "free?" (You can tell welfare dependency is a trap by looking at the sort of training available at government expense to people on welfare. Most programs won't train someone adequately to get any job that covers insurance costs. Even the slightest personal initiative also cancels healthcare coverage for children. Thus people become trapped by the needs of their children. It is very hard to "work your way" out of welfare.)
Notice I didn't mention race in the prior paragraph because there is a reason. People of all races are part of that system. We have gone from a system of involuntary servitude that included obvious slavery and bogus indentures; to a system of cyclical dependency and extraction of one's labor without consent. Whereas in 1860 less than 10% of Americans were forced to work for someone else's benefit or to toe a certain line in order to stay fed; today it is nearly ALL Americans in one way or another. (As an aside, look in the Constitution where indentured persons were prohibited from voting. Indentured servitude was so bad that many committed suicide to escape. Any child born to an indentured servant was an indentured servant as well. Indentures were often extended almost indefinitely. Although slavery was abolished as part of the War between the States, indentured servitude persisted well up into the 20th century.)
All of this is background to make sure it is understood that there can be very legitimate reasons for looking at the Confederate Flag favorably.
As a halfway bright guy, because I realize too many people would not understand it in the same way I do and would see it as a symbol of oppression (even though the slave ships were based out of Rhode Island in the North); I would never use the flag in advertising.
Nevertheless, personally, I see it as a symbol of freedom and lost freedom.
I am sensitive to the fact that others see it differently -- particularly those whose ancestors were sold into slavery in the South by greedy Northern industrialists who wished to force the South to sell products to them so cheaply that only slave labor would be feasible. So I wouldn't display it in advertising.
Even so, I would NOT automatically assume that a provider who used that flag in her imagery was a racist, an advocate of slavery, or any of that. That flag has too broad a meaning. To ME, it represents liberty and lost liberty -- the spirit of rebellion against authority, and a symbol of desired independence.
I think icing out a potentially perfectly fine client for a reason so tenuous and involving so much assumption is a bad idea.
Naturally, I will not dispute a woman's absolute right to determine who will lie with her under what conditions. It is HER body and nobody else's -- at least until the activity is decriminalized at which time the State will have a say as to who she lies with. But for now, she is a free person. If she wishes to exclude Democrats, Republicans, Nazis, Libertarians, whatever -- it is her right and I support it unambiguously.
But I think the OP may be reading a bit much into the display of a flag. It could mean many things.
Some racist groups, incidentally, use the regular American flag and quote founding fathers.
Of course, its use as a hateful symbol, or its perception as same, is largely based, IMO, on a version of history promulgated by the victors; and that version of history is that the South was all about slavery and that the North was all about freedom.
I am not going to get into the details of the historical inaccuracies -- please read the books by William and Mary professor Ludwell H. Johnson for greater detail. I will simply summarize.
The South had a culture and an understanding of liberty that was radically different from the North. It was agrarian, Jeffersonian and Aristotelian; whereas the North was mercantilistic, Hamiltonian and Platonic. The South felt that its liberty was being threatened by the Federal union, and sought escape.
Yes, slavery was an issue there. A horrible and nasty issue. It was a big enough issue to have been specifically mentioned in the articles of secession voted on by various state legislatures.
BUT -- the most bloody war ever fought by the U.S. was NOT fought over slavery. As Lincoln made clear, his goal was to preserve the Federal union -- and if he could do so by maintaining slavery, it would be maintained; or, if by abolishing slavery -- it would be abolished. In his zeal to preserve the Union as a corporate entity he even imprisoned dissidents in the North who disagreed with his program. He was no libertarian.
In the wake of the War between the States, the last real balance on the unchecked power of the Federal government was removed. As Jefferson and Madison both pointed out (in the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions against the Alien and Sedition Acts respectively); the Federal government cannot be the sole arbiter of the Constitutionality of its own actions simply by using three different branches of its own body as a smoke-and-mirror separation of powers. But the War between the States left the Federal government as the sole arbiter of the extent of its own authority.
When those who believe our government is too large, too expensive, too intrusive, too abusive, too imperialistic and more complain -- they need look no further for the causation than the fact that the War between the States removed the last effectual check on Federal power. Now, the States -- originally intended to be sovereign protectors of our liberty -- are little more than administrative units of the Federal monster. All it takes, now, for the Federal government to have ANY authority is for 5 members of the Supreme Court to SAY it does.
Yes, slavery was ended in that war. And that is inarguably a good thing. But its ending was incidental to the conduct of the war -- a war for the assertion of federal power and for the destruction of agrarianism. And, paradoxically, while direct slavery was ended; I am quite certain that had the War had a different outcome or even not been fought at all; I would not be working for the government for free (i.e. slavery using a non-obvious velvet manacle) until May every year before being allowed to keep the product of my own sweat and ingenuity.
Look, today, and be honest. Is the family who has been cleverly and deliberately trapped in a cycle of welfare dependency, whose children are forced into a government education system against their will, and then feels compelled to vote in certain ways in order to prevent their own starvation "free?" (You can tell welfare dependency is a trap by looking at the sort of training available at government expense to people on welfare. Most programs won't train someone adequately to get any job that covers insurance costs. Even the slightest personal initiative also cancels healthcare coverage for children. Thus people become trapped by the needs of their children. It is very hard to "work your way" out of welfare.)
Notice I didn't mention race in the prior paragraph because there is a reason. People of all races are part of that system. We have gone from a system of involuntary servitude that included obvious slavery and bogus indentures; to a system of cyclical dependency and extraction of one's labor without consent. Whereas in 1860 less than 10% of Americans were forced to work for someone else's benefit or to toe a certain line in order to stay fed; today it is nearly ALL Americans in one way or another. (As an aside, look in the Constitution where indentured persons were prohibited from voting. Indentured servitude was so bad that many committed suicide to escape. Any child born to an indentured servant was an indentured servant as well. Indentures were often extended almost indefinitely. Although slavery was abolished as part of the War between the States, indentured servitude persisted well up into the 20th century.)
All of this is background to make sure it is understood that there can be very legitimate reasons for looking at the Confederate Flag favorably.
As a halfway bright guy, because I realize too many people would not understand it in the same way I do and would see it as a symbol of oppression (even though the slave ships were based out of Rhode Island in the North); I would never use the flag in advertising.
Nevertheless, personally, I see it as a symbol of freedom and lost freedom.
I am sensitive to the fact that others see it differently -- particularly those whose ancestors were sold into slavery in the South by greedy Northern industrialists who wished to force the South to sell products to them so cheaply that only slave labor would be feasible. So I wouldn't display it in advertising.
Even so, I would NOT automatically assume that a provider who used that flag in her imagery was a racist, an advocate of slavery, or any of that. That flag has too broad a meaning. To ME, it represents liberty and lost liberty -- the spirit of rebellion against authority, and a symbol of desired independence.
I think icing out a potentially perfectly fine client for a reason so tenuous and involving so much assumption is a bad idea.
Naturally, I will not dispute a woman's absolute right to determine who will lie with her under what conditions. It is HER body and nobody else's -- at least until the activity is decriminalized at which time the State will have a say as to who she lies with. But for now, she is a free person. If she wishes to exclude Democrats, Republicans, Nazis, Libertarians, whatever -- it is her right and I support it unambiguously.
But I think the OP may be reading a bit much into the display of a flag. It could mean many things.
Some racist groups, incidentally, use the regular American flag and quote founding fathers.
- Ansley
- 07-20-2010, 08:17 AM
Thanks for taking the time to write such an informative post. Who would have ever thought you could learn a little history on a board like this.
- Guest083011
- 07-20-2010, 08:20 AM
As a Northern guy, I will say racism still exists up here (northeast), it's just that people hide it better (notice no smiley). I am quite willing to admit not being knowledgeable about the Civil war and things that have lead up to it and the aftermath (heck, many say I'm just not knowledgeable, period 
). It is interesting to read your thoughts on it (should that be "y'all?"). Couple of tangents off the thread but that's to be expected here. 
). It is interesting to read your thoughts on it (should that be "y'all?"). Couple of tangents off the thread but that's to be expected here.
- Guest083011
- 07-20-2010, 08:21 AM
I did notice Ans and I posted the same thoughts at almost the same time. Gotta a meet that girl one day (I know, "get a room").
- Fred Dobbs
- 07-20-2010, 08:23 AM
That was a fantastic post Laurentius!
- Rudyard K
- 07-20-2010, 08:50 AM
- nevergaveitathought
- 07-20-2010, 09:09 AM
Even so, I would NOT automatically assume that a provider who used that flag in her imagery was a racist, an advocate of slavery, or any of that. That flag has too broad a meaning. To ME, it represents liberty and lost liberty -- the spirit of rebellion against authority, and a symbol of desired independence.
I think icing out a potentially perfectly fine client for a reason so tenuous and involving so much assumption is a bad idea.
Naturally, I will not dispute a woman's absolute right to determine who will lie with her under what conditions. It is HER body and nobody else's -- at least until the activity is decriminalized at which time the State will have a say as to who she lies with. But for now, she is a free person. If she wishes to exclude Democrats, Republicans, Nazis, Libertarians, whatever -- it is her right and I support it unambiguously. Originally Posted by Laurentius
i have long FELT what you so artfully ARTICULATED, thank you.
of course should this activity ever become decriminalized, another's civil rights will surpass the liberty and freedom to choose who to lie with by a woman who makes this her work.