Having The Same Argument, Again.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Absolutely. 75% climb a corp ladder through politics, luck and some ability, then crow about how they're the reason the company had a spectacular quarter and, when a few quarters later the business cycle isn't as kind to the company, they parachute out and joint the free agent market. It's a fucked system. The "talent" justification is a bad fucking joke.

How's an in-house lawyer dumb? If you've the choice of billing your time like a factory shlep in a firm, or getting paid a similar amount to work in house, how's it even a decision? Could there ever be a question on which to pick? Of course, choosing the much better of two evils doesn't make one brilliant, but it's much closer to that than "brain dead." Quite opposed, I'd say.

when I started there was a clear set of paths-

Gov lawyer- you might not get respect, but you get responsibility quickly- you'll be in Judge's chambers while your classmates are in warehouses looking at boxes (hi Adder!). The page isn't great, but the 4 weeks vacation will actually be used. 100% job security unless you're a moron.

In House- 9-5 and better pay than Gov, vacation will be used, lots of boring low risk job though. 100% job security.

firm- no responsibility but big bucks and the chance for the brass ring if you develop clents- your firm offers 6 week vacation? that's nice.

but about 7 or 8 years ago the in-house changed. you work hours as sick as firm, forget your vacation, and still get less money. Oh, and you get to watch and wait as those around you get laid off one by one- and anti-bonus, you haven't spent a second trying to build clients when you are forced to look for a firm job at 50 years of age. Inhouse today can still be good but you have to be careful as a mug.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

when I started there was a clear set of paths-

Gov lawyer- you might not get respect, but you get responsibility quickly- you'll be in Judge's chambers while your classmates are in warehouses looking at boxes (hi Adder!). The page isn't great, but the 4 weeks vacation will actually be used. 100% job security unless you're a moron.

In House- 9-5 and better pay than Gov, vacation will be used, lots of boring low risk job though. 100% job security.

firm- no responsibility but big bucks and the chance for the brass ring if you develop clents- your firm offers 6 week vacation? that's nice.

but about 7 or 8 years ago the in-house changed. you work hours as sick as firm, forget your vacation, and still get less money. Oh, and you get to watch and wait as those around you get laid off one by one- and anti-bonus, you haven't spent a second trying to build clients when you are forced to look for a firm job at 50 years of age. Inhouse today can still be good but you have to be careful as a mug.

of course the people I know best are in dead industries

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

et tu whiffe?

edit- Ty is not seriously supporting the kagan nomination. he posted at least ten other people's opinions that Harriet m was unqualified for the exact same reason. you should know when he is just messing around.

You are maybe confusing me with Penske or Spanky.

The thing is, I remember where I was when Miers was nominated, and I'm pretty sure that I wasn't posting on the board.

Which is to say, I think you're full of shit.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

You are maybe confusing me with Penske or Spanky.

The thing is, I remember where I was when Miers was nominated, and I'm pretty sure that I wasn't posting on the board.

Which is to say, I think you're full of shit.

assume for a moment you are right, are you saying because you were distracted we cannot look at the blogs you routinely give your proxy to extrapolate how you would have thought?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

You are maybe confusing me with Penske or Spanky.

The thing is, I remember where I was when Miers was nominated, and I'm pretty sure that I wasn't posting on the board.

Which is to say, I think you're full of shit.

I don't normally reply to the same post twice, but we already know that R-socks will publically disagree with R actions so your cites are empty at best, and in fact undercut your failure to be similarly critical of Obama's nomination, don't they?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I don't normally reply to the same post twice, but we already know that R-socks will publically disagree with R actions so your cites are empty at best, and in fact undercut your failure to be similarly critical of Obama's nomination, don't they?

Do you not see significant differences between Miers and Kagan?

Both Roberts and Kagan had/have resumes which did not shed a lot of light, for the public anyway, about their views. Were Bush and Obama drawn to pick them because their lack of a paper trail would make it easier to get them confirmed? Were they drawn to jobs that would be safe for them as later nominees. I'd like to think not, in either case.

The whole Supreme Court confirmation spectacle is such pointless political theater. Everyone is expecting another Clarence Thomas Show, and it never pans out.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

The whole Supreme Court confirmation spectacle is such pointless political theater. Everyone is expecting another Clarence Thomas Show, and it never pans out.

Ah, yes, the silent justice.

Hank, are you going to attempt a rational opposition to Kagan, or just launch cheap shots at other posters.

Either way is fine, I'd just like to know whether I should bother reading any of it in advance.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Ah, yes, the silent justice.

Hank, are you going to attempt a rational opposition to Kagan, or just launch cheap shots at other posters.

Either way is fine, I'd just like to know whether I should bother reading any of it in advance.

just pointing out that Ty had objected in the past, as did the Rsit now seems clear, to a nominee with no paper trail. I won't wade into it, I'm just Ty-adopting the arguments of others.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

just pointing out that Ty had objected in the past, as did the Rsit now seems clear, to a nominee with no paper trail. I won't wade into it, I'm just Ty-adopting the arguments of others.

I don't recall objecting to Miers' lack of a paper trail. My recollection is that I thought she seemed mediocre. I also thought that from the perspective of the left, she was about as good as it was going to get from that White House.

But, as I say, I don't know that I said any of this on the board, because of where I was and what I was doing in October, 2005. And neither do you, obviously.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I don't recall objecting to Miers' lack of a paper trail. My recollection is that I thought she seemed mediocre. I also thought that from the perspective of the left, she was about as good as it was going to get from that White House.

But, as I say, I don't know that I said any of this on the board, because of where I was and what I was doing in October, 2005. And neither do you, obviously.

is this denial like when you denied slamming bush for vaccine-failures because all you did was post a blogger slamming bush? or is this some new variant of denial?

by the way I loved Ten Phen. great kim chee.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

is this denial like when you denied slamming bush for vaccine-failures because all you did was post a blogger slamming bush? or is this some new variant of denial?

by the way I loved Ten Phen. great kim chee.

Clearly, my actual views are extraneous to this conversation you like to have with me.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Miers and Kagan are alike in that the President was/is familiar with their views because of their personal relationship (Obama and Kagan taught at Chicago at the same time, with Diane Wood, who was also on the shortlist), but the rest of us are much less so. In my book I don't think that's a sufficient reason to vote against a nominee, but obviously the conservative Republicans in the Senate disagreed five years ago and maybe still do.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Clearly, my actual views are extraneous to this conversation you like to have with me.

about the restaurant or the judge?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

about the restaurant or the judge?

Did they really have kimchee? That's not Cambodian.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

just pointing out that Ty had objected in the past, as did the Rsit now seems clear, to a nominee with no paper trail. I won't wade into it, I'm just Ty-adopting the arguments of others.

Cheap shots only. Thank you for the notice. I won't bother to read.