[Tousles RandRover’s hair]
Yes you did, you clever, clever boy. Yes you did. Didn’t you shoot them down well? What a good boy.
[/Tousling]
22? You reading the large type edition or something? It’s 18 for me.
I just found out a couple of months ago that I’ve been wrong about this word my whole life–I thought it was homophonous with “tussle.”
Ah, sfg. You going to respond to my ass-kicking of your argument?
Villa and jayjay, if you can do any better than these other chumps, then step right up. If Ýou can’t, then by all means continue to just act the fool.
At least RR keeps up the public’s perception of lawyers…
I already did, sparky. I’ve also run it by around 20 other lawyers, from liberal douches to ex-GOP political appointees, and they agree with the rest of the world other than you.
So I’m voting for willful blindess on your part on this, and will just hang around. I figure you’ll disgrace the profession whether I watch or not, so I might as well get some entertainment value from it.
Oh, you mean that piffle about a responsibility not being a *responsibility *if you can get away with not doing it?
Wholly unconvincing. Borderline nonsensical. I’m seriously embarrassed you that that’s the best you can come up with, and you continue to point to it as some sort of master stroke.
On the other hand, “who’s gonna MAKE ME?” does fit nicely within the established “playground rhetoric” rules.
Ah, sfg. You going to respond to my ass-kicking of your argument?
Villa and jayjay, if you can do any better than these other chumps, then step right up. If Ýou can’t, then by all means continue to just act the fool.
Uh oh. He’s stuck in a loop. Do you smell something burning?
Ray Charles playing tennis against Stevie Wonder, endless love.
Blurp. Please pardon the double post.
Villa, what exactly did those 20 lawyers say? That a lawyer is required to do pro bono? You sure they meant “required” in the sense of “absolutely have an actual obligation in the real world” instead of just “have a moral/ethical obligation”?
I think the direct quote from one was “God this guy’s a prick. Tax lawyer you say? Color me unsurprised.”
DRINK!
bub 4
buddy 2
chump(s) 2
smart guy 1
bro 1
tough guy 1
So I gather that villanelle means any song where the the chorus is “Rand is a fucking tard”
SFG is a chick. I made the same mistake because she plays a tank (chicks are usually healers or go pew pew) but it turns out she has boobs.
liberal douche 15
bub 4
buddy 2
chump 2
smart guy 1
bro 1
tough guy 1
** hiccup **
Blurp. Please pardon the double post.
Villa, what exactly did those 20 lawyers say? That a lawyer is required to do pro bono? You sure they meant “required” in the sense of “absolutely have an actual obligation in the real world” instead of just “have a moral/ethical obligation”?
That’s not really fair.
First, MOST attorneys fail to fulfill their pro bono responsibility but most of us at least pay lip service to having intended to do it but then make up some excuse (Washington DC is cool about this by letting us buy indulgences, you can literally donate money to the legal defense fund and consider your pro bono obligation fulfilled).
Second, we tax attorney are handicapped by a practice that strains our ethics on an almost daily basis.
Litigation lawyers are rewarded for winning arguments, corporate lawyers are rewarded for really good spellchecking (corporate lawyers can go through a 50 page tax memo and find the two times you didn’t doublespace after a period), tax lawyers are rewarded for helping the people most capable of paying taxes avoid paying those taxes.
There is literally no reason why tax lawyers are any less capable of performing pro bono work than corporate attorneys but for some reason, there is usually one guy in the tax department that carries the whole department in the pro bono arena and you just KNOW that guy is going to go work for a non profit in the next 3 or 4 years.
You call that a handicap? I call it selecting for people like Rand. Just like car dealerships tend to select for aggressive hard sellers.