Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Adder

Why aren’t we hanging with a younger crowd, dude?

You mean our children?

My son was in the states for fencing today, so I got to go to a crowded Gym and hang out with a couple hundred high schoolers. A veritable "younger crowd".

They're very loud.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Speak for yourself. I am seeing a 23-year old self-descrbed pansexual.

LessinVancouver

I salute you. And kind of hate you.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

Yesterday I attended a deposition in which the almost 70 year PI attorney was questioning a party witness. Not a main target. He personally claims to have recovered over $1B in his career for clients, and his firm claims to have recovered over $4B.

Why the hell is this guy still working? Why isn't someone else taking this secondary deposition? Why can't this guy provide, at the very least, a small snack like pretzels in his conference room? These kind of people drive me crazy. My brain doesn't understand it.

Because the old codger died inside long ago. The litigation software took over his brain, and now he’s wasted his golden ticket.

Very few are smart enough to walk away when they “ring the bell.”

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Does anyone really believe that AA directly harms black people? I think a view I've heard from thoughtful conservatives (I may be going to back to law school) revolves around a commitment to formal equality under the law, out of a mistrust that any departure from formal equality is pernicious because it can be twisted to bad ends. So the idea is not that AA itself is bad for black people, but that it undermines the principle of equality and in the long run will have other bad effects.

No one really thinks AA harms black people. That’s a bit of BS dressed up as contrarian thinking.

The only laws that may harm protected classes are discrimination claims (age, sex, race, etc.). It can harm one’s chances to be perceived as unfireable.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

The problem with "who gets a pass" is that Dems seem to have a different standard for Dems then for R's, and R's do the opposite (as Ty said it is political as all hell), and then mix in "why does white guy Hank get to have an opinion on Liam?" Remember someone getting hit with second hand me-too when he said that someone's #metoo thing wasn't as bad as some other guy's so he gives the less bad guy a pass? Then he was in shit for saying that (forget who it was). Then mix in do all women/black people get to set subjective standards that all have to be met? Like some black people are saying maybe the gov is net positive enough to get a pass- whereas Al Sharpton is "fuck him." It seems the Trump model of "fuck that I'm staying" is the only sure course, but a wrong one?

Aside from making this about you somehow (and it ain't just you, but it's amazing how quickly the conversation shifts from "wtf did Liam just say" to "What about my opinion?"), I can't get over this paragraph. It looks like it contains:

• Dems are unfair
• I don't get to have an opinion
• Some indecipherable #metoo comment
• Why do black people get to determine everything related to race
• Black people have different opinions on things, which is...unfair to others?
• Trump is consistent

I'm not even going to tackle any of this, because it's all so fucking stupid.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Adder

Dude had credible allegations against him, made his own decision (and the right one), and was called out by a whole slew of his colleagues not named Gillibrand.

I'll have to disagree with you on this one. Credible allegations for which he asked for a full investigation. Gillibrand lead the charge to remove him before he was allowed an investigation. And the one allegation based on that photo was not something he deserved to lose his job over. Censure him or punish him in some other way. But there is no denying that there was a rush to judgment. And Gillibrand was grandstanding.

TM

[ferrets_bueller]

Very few are smart enough to walk away when they “ring the bell.”

After much deliberation, I have determined that I am in a position that my financial future, and that of my family unto my grandchildren's generation, is secure. Having worked at the same outfit for 44 years, I have decided not to make a career of it. The signature cases I have on my docket are in the "pig has moved through most of the python" stage. My successor is more than ready, she has been ready for a decade. Time to step down before the Board taps me on the shoulder, pins a note to my sweater, and leaves me at a dog track. It is time. I'm going out on a very good note.



At age 72 and a low fraction, I will ring the bell on March 29, thus making April Fools Day my first day of retirement. Bueller LLC will open for business the next day.



Mostly, I'll be found at beaches between North Carolina, Bermuda, Aruba, Costa Rica, and, when the narco problem clears up again, Barra Beach in Rio. Buy futures in SPF 90 sunscreen. I'll be using it by the quart as I fish for breakfast at sunrise, reapplying until the cocktail hour at sunset.



I also expect to be busy enough, but not too busy. I will be working for the World Bank and the Financial Services Volunteer Corps once or twice a year to see a few of the more remote emerging economies I have yet to visit. Get ticket, review facts on the ground, write report, repeat.



I wish all of you the same level of happiness in your careers that I've been fortunate enough to have. Peace.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Aside from making this about you somehow (and it ain't just you, but it's amazing how quickly the conversation shifts from "wtf did Liam just say" to "What about my opinion?"), I can't get over this paragraph. It looks like it contains:

• Dems are unfair
• I don't get to have an opinion
• Some indecipherable #metoo comment
• Why do black people get to determine everything related to race
• Black people have different opinions on things, which is...unfair to others?
• Trump is consistent

I'm not even going to tackle any of this, because it's all so fucking stupid.

TM

I was referring to a bunch of people offering their opinions here, and we are, mostly, white, so noting that our takes are not so important.

Also, noting that with at least me too, a male actor who "ranked" one violator's acts relative to another was actually in trouble for voicing an opinion.

THEN asking what is the standard? Must one satisfy one is actually okay given all views of the insulted class, or is there some objective average? Like with Frakken- many voices said give him a pass, others said he needs to go- if there are voices to fry the guy and others saying let him stand, do we find a mean?

I don't really care whether Liam ever works again, or if he does. I think the Va gov should go down. I was more interested is seeing people's takes on what should happen.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

You say the dem who routinely wore black face is out BECAUSE of his press conferences. You'd give an R a pass for being a regular black face user? Please.

Edit- plus, the thought that at least is giving people pause is "because he does so much good." the definition of what is "good" always flows from political stance- "that R senator may have worn black face but he's very effective at stripping away EPA regulations so maybe we give him a pass?"

I really find it very hard to follow what the fuck you're saying.

If you support racist fucking policies and you're a fucking black face-wearing racist, you get bounced. If you actively work towards equity when it comes to diversity issues and you have been found to do some stupid, ignorant, racist shit in your past, should you get bounced which might result in an alleged sexual assaulter, other blackface-wearing jackass, or a Republican who will work against equity taking office? It's obviously a more complicated question. But I understand you'd rather make it a simple, cut-and-dried hypocrisy issue because it's easier to throw out empty platitudes on this board that way.

TM

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by thurgreedmarshall

i really find it very hard to follow what the fuck you're saying.

If you support racist fucking policies and you're a fucking black face-wearing racist, you get bounced. If you actively work towards equity when it comes to diversity issues and you have been found to do some stupid, ignorant, racist shit in your past, should you get bounced which might result in an alleged sexual assaulter, other blackface-wearing jackass, or a republican who will work against equity taking office? It's obviously a more complicated question. But i understand you'd rather make it a simple, cut-and-dried hypocrisy issue because it's easier to throw out empty platitudes on this board that way.

Tm

stp- basically people with a political stance define what is good from the standpoint of that political stance. I'm not throwing dirt at Dems, I'm just suggesting everyone be honest that whether an official has "value" that might merit saving comes from one's political stance.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I really find it very hard to follow what the fuck you're saying.

If you support racist fucking policies and you're a fucking black face-wearing racist, you get bounced. If you actively work towards equity when it comes to diversity issues and you have been found to do some stupid, ignorant, racist shit in your past, should you get bounced which might result in an alleged sexual assaulter, other blackface-wearing jackass, or a Republican who will work against equity taking office? It's obviously a more complicated question. But I understand you'd rather make it a simple, cut-and-dried hypocrisy issue because it's easier to throw out empty platitudes on this board that way.

TM

he thinks we ought to try to see things from the racists' point of view

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

So you give someone a pass if their record since the incident is to do what dems think positive? Got it. so you would give a hypothetical R a pass if he became a dem. You sir, are evolved.

This is getting dumber by the fucking minute.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

They (alotting for tons of actually racist haters) believe that cutting back gov and social safety net is actually how to best address racial and economic inequality. You dismiss that this is any way, let alone the best way, but for those that believe it, they think they are helping. So now a hypo senator who wore black face but has spent the last 20 years doing what he thinks best, cutting the size of gov and social peograms- you would not cut him slack since he is not doing what you think helps. That is entirely a politically based decision. The only way an R can do good by you is to embrace D policies. Own it, it applies to everyone.no shame.

I thought you were being intentionally ridiculous before, but I see now that you are actually just ridiculous.

TM

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

he thinks we ought to try to see things from the racists' point of view

Nice. That's right, I'm trying to keep America safe for racists.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

stp- basically people with a political stance define what is good from the standpoint of that political stance. I'm not throwing dirt at Dems, I'm just suggesting everyone be honest that whether an official has "value" that might merit saving comes from one's political stance.

Perhaps the most interest set of discussions I've seen on Northam have been had among professional historians of the south, putting together the bits and pieces of either once-legitimate but long since debunked history and the bits of total fabrication and myth that make up his world view of southern history, especially such chestnuts as referring to early slaves as indentured servants.

It reminds me of touring southern historical sites and being shown a reconstructed slave cabin - the dimensions were right, the dirt floor was right, but there was a fresh coat of paint on the cabin (we know that slaves used various whitewashes usually homemade from local mineral deposits) so it looked neat and tidy and it was all in good repair and made from modern milled timber, and the guide described to us how most slaves were really treated pretty well, fed properly, whipped rarely, and it was better than what they had in Africa.

Yeah, sure bud. "history" you say.