(03-26-2018 11:14 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-26-2018 11:10 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-26-2018 11:06 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-26-2018 11:01 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-26-2018 10:56 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  Yes, that's exactly correct.

I'm glad that the legal profession is made up of completely honorable people full of integrity who would never cross certain lines. Man, they must get a bad rap for nothing then, huh?

They get a deservedly bad rap for being "fing brash, abrasive, and cut throat." Duh. Next question?

But they have such strong moral fibers that they would never cross the line we're discussing. Got it.

Are you really dissing lawyers as a whole, when most of the top people in your party are lawyers?

I routinely see lawyers on TV advertising themselves as mean and tough. I never realized before you brought it to my attention that what they are really advertising is the willingness to break some legs.

Now, for some levity:

What is the difference between a dead skunk in the road and a dead lawyer in the road?

There are skid marks in front of the skunk.

What a strange road to wander down, and one I really have no urge to go down. I mean really, trying to get me to start defending/attacking lawyers based on the profession of a number of people in the DNC that are lawyers?

What I'm doing is making the point that refutes the idea that Daniel's story is complete fiction, which had been done on this board. I am not saying that what Daniel's said is fact, but that there is no real reason to believe it is complete fiction, as was suggested.

I mean, do you really think that there is no chance a lawyer has not crossed the line Tanq has suggested they wouldn't? There are enough unethical people in EVERY profession that it's difficult to just write off brash and aggressive language and not suggest that it provides evidence that someone was willing to take things a bit too far.