Sulaco
-
Posts
290 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Sulaco
-
-
Percentage of cases, degrees, and credentials.
Florida, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Nebraska/Iowa, and Indiana/Kentucky
Wha does "percentage of cases" mean?
Degrees and credentials are emaningless. Most criminal defense aorneys, private of public, come from lesser schools or come out of top tier schools with crap grades. Something about that maverick personality that a criminal defense attorney should carry, comes out in education.
I exclude elite white colar crim law firms from this. But what they practice is more akin to corporate law.
but we digress. I return to my point, however, the flagship example you chose does not prove that which you hoped it would. In fact the existence of a private tier may improve the provision of publicly funded services to the indigent. I would posit same is true in American hospitals, where indigents benefit from subsidies paid by insured and/or wealthy clients.
Heck I would argue Canada benefits from the fact that Americans pay the prices they pay - but that's another story.
-
How would you know?
I join in that question. I should add I have many friends across several states who practice, some as PDs or equivalents, others as private attorneys. And all, coming from the trenches, would disagree with your view, some would in fact be deeply insulted.
But hey, if you form your opinion based on media portrayals of outlier cases - well I suggest you don't come into the practice of law with that approach to method and analysis.
-
It's somewhat the equivalent in the US of being able to afford a good lawyer versus getting a public defender.
A two-tier system strangles the public system.
Wrong. I am a lawyer in an American state. Most states have well developed public defender systems. The PD's are competent workhorses with ideological commitment. But we have a two tier systme. It seems to work okay. So there you go.
Additionally:
Personally I do private cases, and the money from those cases permits me to work at state rates when PD's are conflicted off. My ability to do private cases (Tier A) permits me to put the expertise I develop there to state paid PD-alternative cases(Tier B ). I would argue Tier B benefits from the private tier.
This is analogous with doctors out here who charge high prices to those who can bear the cost but send some time working in free or charity clinics employing expertise paid for by the wealthy.
-
General Dynamics Canada, like so many other Canadian defense contractors, profits nicely from the arms business. You can try to squirm away from this Canadian fact, but resistance is futile.
Wha!?! Canada no do wrong!?!
http://www.oxfam.org.au/explore/mining/our-work-with-communities/marinduque-island-the-philippines
-
You're dealing with a guy who wants to stick cameras on every politician. Tinfoil hat doesn't seem to quite sum up Eyeball. I'm kinda glad he's moving towards not voting.
Hmm... that's the only idea of his that I like.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Justice_of_Roosting_Chickens
Churchill's remarks about World Trade Center victims became the center of considerable attention and controversy in January 2005 when Hamilton College of Clinton, New York invited him to give a speech. As a result, the speech was cancelled, citing "credible threats of violence". Churchill's "little Eichmanns" drew ferverous condemnation from conservative media pundits, who called for his resignation and deemed him unfit to teach. The University of Colorado Board of Regents publicly apologized for Churchill's writings about the September 11, 2001 attacks. Following this media controversy, Churchill was investigated for academic misconduct, fired, and filed a lawsuit against CU that he won in a jury verdict but that was vacated by the judge in the case.
Heheheheh
Freedom of speech in Amerikkka
What is not mentioned by you, apparently, is that the academic misconduct consisted of severe plagarism and other acts of academic dishonesty. The firing was a result of a multi-month investigation.
But - whatever.
-
My, how regional that map looks. First past the post system - two party, unless regionalism is tearing a country apart. The Tories' nuclear option - let the Scots figure out if they want to spin off their ultra-welfare state.
-
I am sure someone has pointed this out already, but this is obviously an attempt to help out Spain, Portugal, Greece and Southern Italy by subsidizing British and German tourists with British and German money.
-
Well - during the Bush years Canadians often said (while wreathed in their characteristic smugness) they hated the Pres but not rank an file Americans - despite the fact that they are boorish, ugly and arrogant. I guess the findings here are consistent then.
-
Hello! I’ve got a friend who lives in Ukraine. He told me that some Ukrainian nationalist organizations like The Brotherhood, Trizub, Patriots of Ukraine, and UNA-UNSO began to discuss on their forums a would-be voyage to Georgia allegedly to take part in the ‘peace march’ confined to a one-year anniversary of a war between Georgia and South Ossetia. I was surprised and intrigued to know that because only Georgians take part in this march – a group of young Georgians head the boundary between Georgia and South Ossetia, which is rather considered as an act of provocation. Now here’s a logical question – what Ukrainian natioanlists are going to do there? I used to read that during a war between Georgia and South Ossetia Ukrainian nationalists also came to Georgia where they disguised themselves in Russian soldier’s military dress to attack Georgian villages. It is true that you can never distinguish a Russian from Ukrainian. So, Saakashvili was at liberty to accuse Russian military of trespassing Georgia’s boundary and committing crimes against Georgian population. Looks like Saakashvili decided to be unoriginal – Ukrainian nationalists will once again disguise themselves in Russian soldier’s military dress to fire on peace marchers. When this happens, Saakashvili will start yelling to make the world believe Russians fire at unarmed Georgians. Yeah, we know you scoundrel! You will easily spare your compatriots to achieve your goals!
In fact there were neither Russians nor Georgians involved in last year's war. On one side you had Ukrainian nationalists killing off ostensibly allied Georgian villagers, and on the other chornozhupy blacks from Amerika prtending to be Georgian soldiers. All overseen by German jews seeking to stir up trouble so their banks could further enrich themselved. Russians and Georgians are really best of friends. -
Yes it is but a good cook knows how to take care of it. (and the goose fat has uses too)
Mmmmm... yes it does.
-
Gandhi Ji Righteous?
I suppose even righteous people could oppose the second world war and go to bed with his nieces..(to test his resistence to temptation)
Not to mention the righteous man said some terrible things about Negroes.
-
I will come to Dub's defense here. He did acknowledge Israel's right to exist. Few anti Israel rant mongers do this so kudos to him. Possibly I may take him under my wing however, he still has to cull his hate Israel thread count down a bit to be taken seriously as a student of mine.
Don't take him at his word. He also believs Jews have been occupying palestinian land since 1948 - the implication - there shouldn't be an Israel.
He doesn't acknowledge their right to exist, he is just willing to allow that for now at least - that battle has been lost. It's called incrementalism - '67 borders today, no Israel tomorrow.
The Zionism canard never fails to amuse me. It is so transparent. "Zionism" is just a special word given to jewish nationalism - because as in everything else they must be singled out. When some anti-semite tells me he just criticizes the Zionists, he is really telling me he dislikes any Jew uppity enough to desire a homeland. Is there a special word for Kurdish nationalism? Czech?
-
what have they lied about? how many lies are we talking about, as compared to the lies from the IDF?
are you another war crime apologist, sulaco?
Well - there was that tainted blood scandal. Look - you're an ignoramus - as demonstrated by your continued need to be educated on pretty much everything. Why don't you look those countries up yourself?
-
it's too bad that the government has nothing to do with that organization. that's a non-governmental organization and there are many other amazing israeli organizations and israeli people. you'd be surprised how many israelis are against their government's policies and actions towards the palestinians.
here are some more:
http://www.seruv.org.il/english/default.asp
http://www.adalah.org/eng/index.php
www.whoprofits.org
http://www.yesh-din.org/site/index.php?pag...lang=en&id=
http://www.yeshgvul.org/index_e.asp
it's too bad the israeli government is controlled by religious zealots and zionists who hardly ever see eye to eye with these organizations.
Why would DoP be surprised. As far as I can tell he does not paint Jews as a monolithic whole. The surprise can only come from someone like you.
-
those are figures from the IDF. the IDF is known to lie. Red cross is a reputable organization who has been around for over a century. their main objective is not to gain land, but to save lives of all people around the world.
the redcross is not the only expert organization that does not agree with IDF's body count. there are also amnesty and HRW and numerous others.
The Red Cross is also known to lie.
-
israel has been an occupier for over 60 years and they continue to expand their illegal settlements. they have control of what goes in and what goes out and the palestinian territory, specifically gaza, is like an open air prison. they also violate the rights of the palestinians by their military attacks. you don't think they should be criticized?
no other country has been behaving this way for so long. israel is a special case and receives the attention that is warranted.
This post is a great demonstration of your selectivity re: "international law". Your timeline for Israel's "occupation" of other lands implicates it's internationally lawful inception. I guess international alws that work for the Jews just don't work for you.
Responding to the grander claim of your post is therefore a little ridiculous but let my try with a parital list of current occupiers - some for having occupied for centuries, many brutal today (arguably) and some having been so brutal in the past that they no longer need to flex muscle:
Canada
United States
Mexico
Brazil
Peru
France (though to be fair Alsace Lorraine had been largely pacified)
Italy
Germany
Poland
Russia
Romania
Hungary
Britain
Indonesia
Pakistan
Sudan
China
Laos
Vietnam
Thailand
The Philippines
The Ukraine
Iran
Turkey
Iraq
Syria
India
Sri Lanka
Japan
Taiwan
so on so forth, until I reach somewhere in the nighbourhood of 198 countries.
-
It's not unusual for some to invoke the Cliff's Notes version of Jefferson, when his writings and times are readily available for inspection. The "separation of church and state" evolved over time (especially in Connecticut).
Meh - the founding fathers have generally been relagated to one-dimensional quote sources.
-
the UK does not give automatic citizenship to those who are christian. bad comparison.
do christians receive special real estate privileges in the UK as opposed to those who are not christian? bad comparison, again.
does the UK call itself a christian state? not really. but israel, formally defines itself as a "jewish state".
your attempt to show similarity between the two, failed.
It's always about the Jews for you. See I mistakenly assumed your point was a general one - that atheists are somehow precluded from supoorting certain nations due to entaglements between their governments and religion. But really your main goal is to strive to undermine Israel in the eyes of whomever. You craft your worldview purely in light of this goal. You couldn't really care less about the logic of your argument. In the end it's all about the Jews.
My argument stands. You, as is often the case, show your singleminded hatred of a certain ethnic/religious group. Except of course for your many close Jewish friends. I assume you have those in copious amounts and they all agree with you.
-
i'm not sad for the tamil group. i don't support any group or organization that is okay with killing or terrorizing civilians in order to achieve a goal.
i am, however, sad that you're promoting a type of policy that has killed millions of innocent people. a type of policy that has failed a lot more than it has succeeded.
It has only ever failed for lack of proper implementation and when applicable (in situations other than when the rebels were so butchered as to leave them powerless till assimilation) bad follow-up. An enormous number of successes are forgotten because it's generally viewed as unseemly to celebrate when a majority asserts its rights successfully. It's the cheer the underdog syndrome - we all view ourselves as underdogs so we blindly identify with other underdogs regardless of their methods or often insane ideologies.
But if we were to go through history we would find that the powerful were for the most part (and we are talking in the 99% range or higher) very successful in suppressing rebelions - were these rebellions righteous or, as was more often the case, inspired by evil.
-
Consider that, according to Thomas Jefferson, the U.S.A. was founded with the intention of putting a "wall of separation" between church and state, so that religion and politics could not be combined together as they were under European governments. And consider that all of the Christian Right groups are actively trying to destroy that separation and make the U.S. a Christian nation.
I'm not up on the latest news from Israel, but over the last 30 years there has been a steady increase in power and influence of the Orthodox community. They are pushing religion into their politics and a lot of secular Jews have left the country as it becomes more and more religiously orthodox. And that's why I don't care for the "at least we're better than those Muslims" arguments; we are looking at a snapshot of conditions as they exist now, and we have to consider how both fundamentalist Jews and Christians want to create their own theocracies that would look remarkably like the Muslim versions (including public stonings) if their dreams came true.
Umm... I am constantly amused when such simplisme is ascribed to Jefferson. The man also grew up in a Christian society and considered christianity, sans its miracles, as the moral (and thereofre political) backbone of this nation - he wrote a "miracleless" bible to make Christian morality more paletable to those who did not appreciate the finer points of Christian mysticism. many of Jefferson's writings dealt with how to best build and preserve the moral bedrock upon which a republic can be built and he easily drew on Christian mores to write his rpescription. That is unless you care to argue that Jefferson also wanted a wall between morality and state.
And of course, and this may be hard to believe, vut Jefferson was but one of many founding fathers. And lo and behold, they differed in their views - on some issues terribly so. (I should add, waxing hyperbolic myself, that seldom mentioned is that Jefferson argued for a very limited franchise - he being a Virginian Gentleman that is not surprising -, believed that revolutions where an appropriate and constructive way to change government on a regular basis (how French of him, and had the cockmamie idea that untried farmers with harvest to worry about could put up a fight against trained professional armies)
Now, please direct me to serious Christian wiritngs that call for the establishment of Christian theocracy (with public stoning). I look forward to you providing support for your seeming hyperbolic assertion.
-
if you call yourself an atheist and you support a state that caters to a specific religious group, you're as confused as an anti-abortionist who supports an abortion clinic.
Umm - I have no idea why what you say should be true. I also support Great Britain (whatever that means) which has a state-established church led by it's head of state.
Israel is a secular state strongly informed by it's religion, much like the United States. Jews have over millenia gained the ability to tolarate those who do not share their creed and make place for them in their state. I have yet to hear of a Christian or an Atheist or a Muslim being stripped of his israeli citizenship or the attendant rights simply because of their creed. So what's the problem.
On the other hand Israel is beset by barbaric enemies who's religion teaches even today the murder of infidels. No, I am not talking about some imam in the 14th Century calling for Holy War - I am talking about fatwas being issued today. Given that, i would say atheists and Israelis make natural allies in a region beset by Isalmist dogmas.
-
Today we've got one president who thinks its ok, and another one who thinks its, not ok
Umm no. We had one president who was open about the use of torture by his intelligence services and did much to publicize the internal debate about these methods. Which is why various men who spent time in the debate now face potential political prosecution. We have a sitting president who says on the other hand, "out of sight out of mind."
And so rendition will come into vogue and when impractical the CIA will do what it always has done, but it will again do it secretly, rather than being open about it.
I am not sure which approach is better - though I tend to lean toward the honest one.
-
The governments done a pretty good job at it as well. Inhumane bombing with thousands of civilians in the war zone... kinda like shooting ants with a shotgun.
I bet thats what the Tamil Tigers say when they kill civilians too. But in official war parlance we use the nice clean words, "collateral damage".
Are they done? it now depends on how much the survivors are being helped, eh?
Otherwise, little Jaswinder with the bandy legs will grow up, having many regrets...
Well let's hope the whoopin' was sufficient to last several generations in Tamil memory, eh? Wot wot?
Mulcair doubts Bin Laden pictures exist
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
This is a strange position. No more ciivl disobedience? No more conscientious objection? I dare say that requirement for strict adherence to laws is not a characteristic of democratic society, and if it is, then it is not limited to those societies. It is also amusing to claim that the international roder constitutes some kind of a democracy.