Social Justice Administration

[TexasTiger 13,026]

Ignorant is no way to go through life

I know people that have had to sell everything and go into poverty to pay for legal defenses.

Who? For what? I'm mean other than Clinton.

Former president Bill Clinton, who came to the White House with modest means and left deeply in debt, has collected nearly $40 million in speaking fees over the past six years, according to interviews and financial disclosure statements filed by his wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.).

Talk about people missing humor. Clinton left the WH deeply in debt due to legal fees. He owed far more than he owned. So he sold himself and paid off his legal fees. Now he's well off.

[AFTiger 282]

Talk about people missing humor. Clinton left the WH deeply in debt due to legal fees. He owed far more than he owned. So he sold himself and paid off his legal fees. Now he's well off.

Clinton sold himself many times before he got to the White House and while he was in it.

I wonder why liberals love lawyers but hate doctors.

[TexasTiger 13,026]

AFT, dont bother. This is his standard MO. He asks the vaguest, general questions and then when you answer, will ask more vague and general questions until you tire of answering him. You can answer him 100 times and he will still be pretending that he doesnt see your point, etc.

Make up your mind, David. Is this a humorous thread or a serious thread?

[TexasTiger 13,026]

I wonder why liberals love lawyers but hate doctors.

I wonder why you are utterly incapable of ever reaching a logical conclusion.

[Tiger Al 0]

I wonder why liberals love lawyers but hate doctors.

I wonder why you employ straw man arguments.

[AFTiger 282]

I wonder why liberals love lawyers but hate doctors.

I wonder why you employ straw man arguments.

TA, why do they love lawyers but hate doctors?

TT It was meant to be and exercise in thought. Don't let your hate get in the way of your brain.

The average person cannot afford legal services with personal financial hardship. Why if healthcare is a right is not legal care. Why cannot it be approached inthe same manner? Good legal care can only be afforded by the wealthy. Why can't the poor and middle class have access to the same leagal care without the finacial burden?

I think a third party payer could bring the situation under control.

[Tiger Al 0]

I wonder why liberals love lawyers but hate doctors.

I wonder why you employ straw man arguments.

TA, why do they love lawyers but hate doctors?

Why do you employ straw man arguments?

[TexasTiger 13,026]

The average person cannot afford legal services with personal financial hardship. Why if healthcare is a right is not legal care. Why cannot it be approached inthe same manner? Good legal care can only be afforded by the wealthy. Why can't the poor and middle class have access to the same leagal care without the finacial burden?

I think a third party payer could bring the situation under control.

You don't even understand what you are arguing. Medical care can be life or death. Criminal charges can result in loss of liberty, fines and possible death. Anyone charged with a crime does have the Constitutional right to an attorney. If they can't afford it, it is provided.

If you say the two are analogous, you are arguing that there is a Constitutional right to health care. That's a pretty strong position you have there.

[AFTiger 282]

The average person cannot afford legal services with personal financial hardship. Why if healthcare is a right is not legal care. Why cannot it be approached inthe same manner? Good legal care can only be afforded by the wealthy. Why can't the poor and middle class have access to the same leagal care without the finacial burden?

I think a third party payer could bring the situation under control.

You don't even understand what you are arguing. Medical care can be life or death. Criminal charges can result in loss of liberty, fines and possible death. Anyone charged with a crime does have the Constitutional right to an attorney. If they can't afford it, it is provided.

If you say the two are analogous, you are arguing that there is a Constitutional right to health care. That's a pretty strong position you have there.

You guys are the one arguing for a constitutional right to health care. I am simply applying liberal logic to the profession of law. You seem to think it doesn't work.

I mean, out of control litigation has added an estimated 10-20% to the cost of doing business in this country. One of the reasons is jackpot justice where the lawyer make the money but the "victim" makes very little. I am saying that if we control the income of lawyers we can control the cost of litigation. Perfect liberal logic. After all, the objective of liberalism is poverty for all exept for the chosen elite.

[TexasTiger 13,026]

The average person cannot afford legal services with personal financial hardship. Why if healthcare is a right is not legal care. Why cannot it be approached inthe same manner? Good legal care can only be afforded by the wealthy. Why can't the poor and middle class have access to the same leagal care without the finacial burden?

I think a third party payer could bring the situation under control.

You don't even understand what you are arguing. Medical care can be life or death. Criminal charges can result in loss of liberty, fines and possible death. Anyone charged with a crime does have the Constitutional right to an attorney. If they can't afford it, it is provided.

If you say the two are analogous, you are arguing that there is a Constitutional right to health care. That's a pretty strong position you have there.

You guys are the one arguing for a constitutional right to health care. I am simply applying liberal logic to the profession of law. You seem to think it doesn't work.

I mean, out of control litigation has added an estimated 10-20% to the cost of doing business in this country. One of the reasons is jackpot justice where the lawyer make the money but the "victim" makes very little. I am saying that if we control the income of lawyers we can control the cost of litigation. Perfect liberal logic. After all, the objective of liberalism is poverty for all exept for the chosen elite.

You're a cartoon.

[AFTiger 282]

The average person cannot afford legal services with personal financial hardship. Why if healthcare is a right is not legal care. Why cannot it be approached inthe same manner? Good legal care can only be afforded by the wealthy. Why can't the poor and middle class have access to the same leagal care without the finacial burden?

I think a third party payer could bring the situation under control.

You don't even understand what you are arguing. Medical care can be life or death. Criminal charges can result in loss of liberty, fines and possible death. Anyone charged with a crime does have the Constitutional right to an attorney. If they can't afford it, it is provided.

If you say the two are analogous, you are arguing that there is a Constitutional right to health care. That's a pretty strong position you have there.

You guys are the one arguing for a constitutional right to health care. I am simply applying liberal logic to the profession of law. You seem to think it doesn't work.

I mean, out of control litigation has added an estimated 10-20% to the cost of doing business in this country. One of the reasons is jackpot justice where the lawyer make the money but the "victim" makes very little. I am saying that if we control the income of lawyers we can control the cost of litigation. Perfect liberal logic. After all, the objective of liberalism is poverty for all exept for the chosen elite.

You're a cartoon.

Even cartoons have an element of truth in them.

[TexasTiger 13,026]

The average person cannot afford legal services with personal financial hardship. Why if healthcare is a right is not legal care. Why cannot it be approached inthe same manner? Good legal care can only be afforded by the wealthy. Why can't the poor and middle class have access to the same leagal care without the finacial burden?

I think a third party payer could bring the situation under control.

You don't even understand what you are arguing. Medical care can be life or death. Criminal charges can result in loss of liberty, fines and possible death. Anyone charged with a crime does have the Constitutional right to an attorney. If they can't afford it, it is provided.

If you say the two are analogous, you are arguing that there is a Constitutional right to health care. That's a pretty strong position you have there.

You guys are the one arguing for a constitutional right to health care. I am simply applying liberal logic to the profession of law. You seem to think it doesn't work.

I mean, out of control litigation has added an estimated 10-20% to the cost of doing business in this country. One of the reasons is jackpot justice where the lawyer make the money but the "victim" makes very little. I am saying that if we control the income of lawyers we can control the cost of litigation. Perfect liberal logic. After all, the objective of liberalism is poverty for all exept for the chosen elite.

You're a cartoon.

Even cartoons have an element of truth in them.

I'm glad you have such high standards for yourself-- "an element of truth."

[AFTiger 282]

The average person cannot afford legal services with personal financial hardship. Why if healthcare is a right is not legal care. Why cannot it be approached inthe same manner? Good legal care can only be afforded by the wealthy. Why can't the poor and middle class have access to the same leagal care without the finacial burden?

I think a third party payer could bring the situation under control.

You don't even understand what you are arguing. Medical care can be life or death. Criminal charges can result in loss of liberty, fines and possible death. Anyone charged with a crime does have the Constitutional right to an attorney. If they can't afford it, it is provided.

If you say the two are analogous, you are arguing that there is a Constitutional right to health care. That's a pretty strong position you have there.

You guys are the one arguing for a constitutional right to health care. I am simply applying liberal logic to the profession of law. You seem to think it doesn't work.

I mean, out of control litigation has added an estimated 10-20% to the cost of doing business in this country. One of the reasons is jackpot justice where the lawyer make the money but the "victim" makes very little. I am saying that if we control the income of lawyers we can control the cost of litigation. Perfect liberal logic. After all, the objective of liberalism is poverty for all exept for the chosen elite.

You're a cartoon.

Even cartoons have an element of truth in them.

I'm glad you have such high standards for yourself-- "an element of truth."

Still higher than you standards.

[TexasTiger 13,026]

The average person cannot afford legal services with personal financial hardship. Why if healthcare is a right is not legal care. Why cannot it be approached inthe same manner? Good legal care can only be afforded by the wealthy. Why can't the poor and middle class have access to the same leagal care without the finacial burden?

I think a third party payer could bring the situation under control.

You don't even understand what you are arguing. Medical care can be life or death. Criminal charges can result in loss of liberty, fines and possible death. Anyone charged with a crime does have the Constitutional right to an attorney. If they can't afford it, it is provided.

If you say the two are analogous, you are arguing that there is a Constitutional right to health care. That's a pretty strong position you have there.

You guys are the one arguing for a constitutional right to health care. I am simply applying liberal logic to the profession of law. You seem to think it doesn't work.

I mean, out of control litigation has added an estimated 10-20% to the cost of doing business in this country. One of the reasons is jackpot justice where the lawyer make the money but the "victim" makes very little. I am saying that if we control the income of lawyers we can control the cost of litigation. Perfect liberal logic. After all, the objective of liberalism is poverty for all exept for the chosen elite.

You're a cartoon.

Even cartoons have an element of truth in them.

I'm glad you have such high standards for yourself-- "an element of truth."

Still higher than you standards.

Actually, Tiger Al has you pegged-- nothing but made up strawman arguments-- you got nothing based in fact. Like this for example:

You guys are the one arguing for a constitutional right to health care.

The whole crux of your posts are based on a lie. That's all you got.

[AFTiger 282]

Please provide a link that it is a lie. Here is one saying that I am right.

Health care as a right

There are still four questions you need to answer.

[TexasTiger 13,026]

Please provide a link that it is a lie. Here is one saying that I am right.

Health care as a right

There are still four questions you need to answer.

Haven't you embarrassed Uncle Earle enough today? A link to an external source doesn't support this assertion:

You guys are the one arguing for a constitutional right to health care.

Please tell me you didn't get a degree from my beloved alma mater.

[AFTiger 282]

Please provide a link that it is a lie. Here is one saying that I am right.

Health care as a right

There are still four questions you need to answer.

Haven't you embarrassed Uncle Earle enough today? A link to an external source doesn't support this assertion:

You guys are the one arguing for a constitutional right to health care.

Please tell me you didn't get a degree from my beloved alma mater.

The assertion is correct.

Isn't it strange that when you run out of arguments, you start calling names.

[TexasTiger 13,026]

Please provide a link that it is a lie. Here is one saying that I am right.

Health care as a right

There are still four questions you need to answer.

Haven't you embarrassed Uncle Earle enough today? A link to an external source doesn't support this assertion:

You guys are the one arguing for a constitutional right to health care.

Please tell me you didn't get a degree from my beloved alma mater.

The assertion is correct.

Isn't it strange that when you run out of arguments, you start calling names.

There comes a point when someone refuses to make sense, refuses to offer support for an assertion and insists they are right, that you just have to conclude it is because they are a moron. You said this in relation to Tiger Al and me:

You guys are the one arguing for a constitutional right to health care.

If we had been arguing that, it would be easy to point to.

[AFTiger 282]

Please provide a link that it is a lie. Here is one saying that I am right.

Health care as a right

There are still four questions you need to answer.

Haven't you embarrassed Uncle Earle enough today? A link to an external source doesn't support this assertion:

You guys are the one arguing for a constitutional right to health care.

Please tell me you didn't get a degree from my beloved alma mater.

The assertion is correct.

Isn't it strange that when you run out of arguments, you start calling names.

There comes a point when someone refuses to make sense, refuses to offer support for an assertion and insists they are right, that you just have to conclude it is because they are a moron. You said this in relation to Tiger Al and me: Provide a link for that is this topic please.

You guys are the one arguing for a constitutional right to health care.

If we had been arguing that, it would be easy to point to.

We are arguing liberal logic, which is an oxymoron.

[TexasTiger 13,026]

Please provide a link that it is a lie. Here is one saying that I am right.

Health care as a right

There are still four questions you need to answer.

Haven't you embarrassed Uncle Earle enough today? A link to an external source doesn't support this assertion:

You guys are the one arguing for a constitutional right to health care.

Please tell me you didn't get a degree from my beloved alma mater.

The assertion is correct.

Isn't it strange that when you run out of arguments, you start calling names.

There comes a point when someone refuses to make sense, refuses to offer support for an assertion and insists they are right, that you just have to conclude it is because they are a moron. You said this in relation to Tiger Al and me: Provide a link for that is this topic please.

You guys are the one arguing for a constitutional right to health care.

If we had been arguing that, it would be easy to point to.

We are arguing liberal logic, which is an oxymoron.

You understand neither logic nor liberals, and are just a plain old moron.

[AFTiger 282]

Didn't take much to get you back to name calling.

[TexasTiger 13,026]

Didn't take much to get you back to name calling.

You offer no real arguments or facts to refute. Just undeniable, persistent stupidity. Stop demonstrating it, I'll stop commenting on it.

[AFTiger 282]

Didn't take much to get you back to name calling.

You offer no real arguments or facts to refute. Just undeniable, persistent stupidity. Stop demonstrating it, I'll stop commenting on it.

Then explain to me why liberal logic applies to medical profession but not to the legal profession. See if you can do it without reorting to accusations or name calling.

Or just post something stupid as you usually do.

[TexasTiger 13,026]

Didn't take much to get you back to name calling.

You offer no real arguments or facts to refute. Just undeniable, persistent stupidity. Stop demonstrating it, I'll stop commenting on it.

Then explain to me why liberal logic applies to medical profession but not to the legal profession. See if you can do it without reorting to accusations or name calling.

Or just post something stupid as you usually do.

Employ actual logic and I'll address it.

[AFTiger 282]

Didn't take much to get you back to name calling.

You offer no real arguments or facts to refute. Just undeniable, persistent stupidity. Stop demonstrating it, I'll stop commenting on it.

Then explain to me why liberal logic applies to medical profession but not to the legal profession. See if you can do it without reorting to accusations or name calling.

Or just post something stupid as you usually do.

Employ actual logic and I'll address it.

I see you went stupid.