GBear4Life said:

---

Professor Henry Higgins said:

---

Perhaps if you had ever been faced with fathering a child out of wedlock and deciding what to do, you would understand that in fact, it does take courage to raise a child. Even if that child is born in wedlock, how many have the courage to put the child's needs and his spouse's needs over his own needs?

If you ever do anything of note with your life, perhaps you will learn that lesson one day.

There are some things the government can affect, but legislating who reproduces isn't one of them, nor is whether those two people stay together and meet their parental responsibilities.

---

This is nonsense, and some perverted hierarchy of virtue and duty. Not sure you even watched the video or have read this thread.

Corolla wasn't asserting governments should force individuals into marriage or not having children out of wedlock. He's observing--and acknowledging--that these are values that are lacking in certain communities more than others. And that there is a strong correlation between outcomes and the adoption of such value systems (two-parent households and education). Also observed is a political ideology's unwillingness to acknowledge these variables, and that we are not helping the communities in question by ignoring these variables, and that we should promote them, incentivize them socially, culturally (even politically).

Your most egregious and alarming assertion is the insistence that it is somehow noble or courageous to follow through on one's duty after making a conscious choice knowing it can lead to an outcome that creates such duties. May as well say it's easy to apply for a job, but it's courageous to show up to work for that job everyday.

What's more courageous (though I wouldn't use that word here) is setting a goal of parenthood and building a foundation that fosters that goal: gainful employment, stability, a committed life-long partner/spouse. Pinning roses on the backs of men and women who make irresponsible choices and are ill-equipped and/or fail to carry out the duties of their choices is the cultural problem.

---

"The Firm encourages children and doesn't prohibit wives from having a job."

(It's a line from a movie if it was too obscure)

Good movie, The Firm

82gradDLSdad said:

---

"The Firm encourages children and doesn't prohibit wives from having a job."

(It's a line from a movie if it was too obscure)

Good movie, The Firm

---

Great movie!

I think it's funny how he came up with mail fraud as a way to bust his firm...kinda like how the FBI was able to bust the McDonald's Monopoly fraudsters in the recent HBO doc

GBear4Life said:

---

82gradDLSdad said:

---

"The Firm encourages children and doesn't prohibit wives from having a job."

(It's a line from a movie if it was too obscure)

Good movie, The Firm

---

Great movie!

I think it's funny how he came up with mail fraud as a way to bust his firm...kinda like how the FBI was able to bust the McDonald's Monopoly fraudsters in the recent HBO doc

---

I've heard the McDonald's doc is good. Have to add it to the covid watch list

82gradDLSdad said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

82gradDLSdad said:

---

"The Firm encourages children and doesn't prohibit wives from having a job."

(It's a line from a movie if it was too obscure)

Good movie, The Firm

---

Great movie!

I think it's funny how he came up with mail fraud as a way to bust his firm...kinda like how the FBI was able to bust the McDonald's Monopoly fraudsters in the recent HBO doc

---

I've heard the McDonald's doc is good. Have to add it to the covid watch list

---

Fascinating story

One of the "recruiters" who'd find people to cash in the winning piece (and take a cut) was asked would he do it again. He said "I'd do it tomorrow". It's hard to blame him.

Most big law firms could be busted for mail fraud every time they put a statement for services rendered in the mail. We knew when we had big firm's defending a Big Corporation we could drive defense costs up by sending lots of correspondence....because 5 guys in the firm were going to read that letter and bill for it.

"Everything depends on billling -- how many hours your're even thinking about a client. I don't care if you're in traffic or shaving or sitting on a park bench."

-The Firm

Yeah, lawyers have earned their reputation.

"Everything depends on billling -- how many hours your're even thinking about a client. I don't care if you're in traffic or shaving or sitting on a park bench."

-The Firm

Yeah, lawyers have earned their reputation.

I have a very wealthy acquaintance who inherited most of her money from her late husband. He was involved in a lot of complicated dealings including commercial real estate and even was partner in a small bank. He was diagnosed with terminal cancer at a relatively young age while they were in the process of divorce but when he found out they reconciled for the sake of the kids. One thing he was able to do for her was straighten everything out in his estate as it was very cumbersome to handle. He had one very reliable attorney he had used for decades that he trusted so much that he became like a family friend. The family had him over for dinner and stuff like that.

After her husband died she went to essentially "collect her check" from the attorney. He asked her how she was handling the death and how the kids were handling it. They made small talk for about an hour and then he gave her what she needed. She later received a bill in the mail for a full hour of billing. I have never seen her so livid in her life. What a scoundrel!

GBear4Life said:

---

Professor Henry Higgins said:

---

Perhaps if you had ever been faced with fathering a child out of wedlock and deciding what to do, you would understand that in fact, it does take courage to raise a child. Even if that child is born in wedlock, how many have the courage to put the child's needs and his spouse's needs over his own needs?

If you ever do anything of note with your life, perhaps you will learn that lesson one day.

There are some things the government can affect, but legislating who reproduces isn't one of them, nor is whether those two people stay together and meet their parental responsibilities.

---

This is nonsense, and some perverted hierarchy of virtue and duty. Not sure you even watched the video or have read this thread.

Corolla wasn't asserting governments should force individuals into marriage or not having children out of wedlock. He's observing--and acknowledging--that these are values that are lacking in certain communities more than others. And that there is a strong correlation between outcomes and the adoption of such value systems (two-parent households and education). Also observed is a political ideology's unwillingness to acknowledge these variables, and that we are not helping the communities in question by ignoring these variables, and that we should promote them, incentivize them socially, culturally (even politically).

Your most egregious and alarming assertion is the insistence that it is somehow noble or courageous to follow through on one's duty after making a conscious choice knowing it can lead to an outcome that creates such duties. May as well say it's easy to apply for a job, but it's courageous to show up to work for that job everyday.

What's more courageous (though I wouldn't use that word here) is setting a goal of parenthood and building a foundation that fosters that goal: gainful employment, stability, a committed life-long partner/spouse. Pinning roses on the backs of men and women who make irresponsible choices and are ill-equipped and/or fail to carry out the duties of their choices is the cultural problem.

---

I listened to it. Carolla constantly interrupted him and was unprofessional, though not surprising. But I don't find Newsom convincing when he's trying to convince me that he cares about these people's lives. It's just political virtue signalling as far as I'm concerned. You don't have a wife or kids and so you don't have any idea what you're talking about here. Honestly, I wouldn't be shocked to find out you're an incel.

As for the rest of your babbling, you don't know much about anything. If you're lucky, you may learn someday.

Professor Henry Higgins said:

---

I listened to it. Carolla constantly interrupted him and was unprofessional, though not surprising. But I don't find Newsom convincing when he's trying to convince me that he cares about these people's lives. It's just political virtue signalling as far as I'm concerned. You don't have a wife or kids and so you don't have any idea what you're talking about here. Honestly, I wouldn't be shocked to find out you're an incel.

As for the rest of your babbling, you don't know much about anything. If you're lucky, you may learn someday.

---

You are out of your league here, clearly, but you'll never give any ground when cornered. You've addressed nothing, merely pointing out that Corolla was rude (lol) and that Newsom wasn't being sincere (I think he is sincere, but that's neither here nor there), and the old trope of "well you don't know what it's like" (breaking; I do have kids) as if that's a valid argument in any circumstance. You made zero points supported by zero arguments.

Not specific to you, but generally speaking this where the "progressives" often fail. Whatever is whatever, culture and values, and the decisions and attitudes that it informs, are equally benign or equally malevolent -- that all disparate outcomes can be traced to one overarching variable - society imposing their oppression and power over select groups but not others. Social pressure not to have children out of wedlock - what I consider unplanned pregnancy with someone you're not committed to for life, at least in spirit - 70 years ago went beyond religious mores. The social science data is in, and unplanned pregnancy and single parent households, stemming from a corrupt and destructive counter-culture sexual revolution of the 60s and 70s, aided by political incentive to be a poor single parent, are crushing children, families and communities.

If there was one social benefit that would have the greatest impact on minority communities, it would be to follow the steps that stand the test of time: graduate highschool, become gainfully employed, get married (i.e. committed), then have a planned pregnancy. But hey, that doesn't sound virtuous nor does it align with ideologies.

Stick to posts about Warren being a fraud.

dimitrig said:

---

I have a very wealthy acquaintance who inherited most of her money from her late husband. He was involved in a lot of complicated dealings including commercial real estate and even was partner in a small bank. He was diagnosed with terminal cancer at a relatively young age while they were in the process of divorce but when he found out they reconciled for the sake of the kids. One thing he was able to do for her was straighten everything out in his estate as it was very cumbersome to handle. He had one very reliable attorney he had used for decades that he trusted so much that he became like a family friend. The family had him over for dinner and stuff like that.

After her husband died she went to essentially "collect her check" from the attorney. He asked her how she was handling the death and how the kids were handling it. They made small talk for about an hour and then he gave her what she needed. She later received a bill in the mail for a full hour of billing. I have never seen her so livid in her life. What a scoundrel!

---

Wait...he billed her for ONE hour and she was pissed?

Having heard every lawyer joke ever told, I have but one client joke:

An attorney defending a large corporation in a 3 month long multi million dollar fraud trial received a defense verdict for his client (i.e. finding of no liability). The attorney texted his client's CEO who was awaiting word: "Justice has prevailed!"
The CEO texted back: "Then you should APPEAL IMMEDIATELY!"*



*This joke is so old that I substituted "text" for "telegram." I used to tell people that behind every crooked lawyer is a crooked client directing his actions.

bearister said:

---

Having heard every lawyer joke ever told, I have but one client joke:

An attorney defending a large corporation in a 3 month long multi million dollar fraud trial received a defense verdict for his client (i.e. finding of no liability). The attorney texted his client's CEO who was awaiting word: "Justice has prevailed!"
The CEO texted back: "Then you should APPEAL IMMEDIATELY!"*



*This joke is so old that I substituted "text" for "telegram." I used to tell people that behind every crooked lawyer is a crooked client directing his actions.

---

The infrastructure of law and the client-lawyer relationship favors the client and naturally puts the lawyer in compromising situations, ethically and legally, in the carrying out their sworn job description -- to serve the client.

dimitrig said:

---

I have a very wealthy acquaintance who inherited most of her money from her late husband. He was involved in a lot of complicated dealings including commercial real estate and even was partner in a small bank. He was diagnosed with terminal cancer at a relatively young age while they were in the process of divorce but when he found out they reconciled for the sake of the kids. One thing he was able to do for her was straighten everything out in his estate as it was very cumbersome to handle. He had one very reliable attorney he had used for decades that he trusted so much that he became like a family friend. The family had him over for dinner and stuff like that.

After her husband died she went to essentially "collect her check" from the attorney. He asked her how she was handling the death and how the kids were handling it. They made small talk for about an hour and then he gave her what she needed. She later received a bill in the mail for a full hour of billing. I have never seen her so livid in her life. What a scoundrel!

---

When my mom died we asked the attorney if we should meet with him to go over the vanilla, boilerplate trust. We didn't know any better. He said sure. We all went and he asked what we were doing. We said we were just going through everything and dividing it up per the trust. He said great just keep doing what your doing. $500 for a small part of one hour. He also mentioned that he was a realtor if we needed help selling the house. I would have let my cat sell it before this ass. I've just about got my $500 worth of hate for this guy used up. It's been 10 years.

82gradDLSdad said:

---

When my mom died we asked the attorney if we should meet with him to go over the vanilla, boilerplate trust. We didn't know any better. He said sure. We all went and he asked what we were doing. We said we were just going through everything and dividing it up per the trust. He said great just keep doing what your doing. $500 for a small part of one hour. He also mentioned that he was a realtor if we needed help selling the house. I would have let my cat sell it before this ass. I've just about got my $500 worth of hate for this guy used up. It's been 10 years.

---

LOL, I'd let my Black Labrador sell my house before I pay a Realtor(s) 6% to take pictures with their iphone and login to the MLS

GBear4Life said:

---

Professor Henry Higgins said:

---

I listened to it. Carolla constantly interrupted him and was unprofessional, though not surprising. But I don't find Newsom convincing when he's trying to convince me that he cares about these people's lives. It's just political virtue signalling as far as I'm concerned. You don't have a wife or kids and so you don't have any idea what you're talking about here. Honestly, I wouldn't be shocked to find out you're an incel.

As for the rest of your babbling, you don't know much about anything. If you're lucky, you may learn someday.

---

You are out of your league here, clearly, but you'll never give any ground when cornered.

---

I don't concede anything to do the stupid and uninformed.

Professor Henry Higgins said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

Professor Henry Higgins said:

---

I listened to it. Carolla constantly interrupted him and was unprofessional, though not surprising. But I don't find Newsom convincing when he's trying to convince me that he cares about these people's lives. It's just political virtue signalling as far as I'm concerned. You don't have a wife or kids and so you don't have any idea what you're talking about here. Honestly, I wouldn't be shocked to find out you're an incel.

As for the rest of your babbling, you don't know much about anything. If you're lucky, you may learn someday.

---

You are out of your league here, clearly, but you'll never give any ground when cornered.

---

I don't concede anything to do the stupid and uninformed.

---

Some may be waiting on pins and needles for you to have a point. But when you rush yourself into ambiguities and irrelevant, belligerent attacks to obfuscate the issue, I already know you don't have one.

GBear4Life said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

I have a very wealthy acquaintance who inherited most of her money from her late husband. He was involved in a lot of complicated dealings including commercial real estate and even was partner in a small bank. He was diagnosed with terminal cancer at a relatively young age while they were in the process of divorce but when he found out they reconciled for the sake of the kids. One thing he was able to do for her was straighten everything out in his estate as it was very cumbersome to handle. He had one very reliable attorney he had used for decades that he trusted so much that he became like a family friend. The family had him over for dinner and stuff like that.

After her husband died she went to essentially "collect her check" from the attorney. He asked her how she was handling the death and how the kids were handling it. They made small talk for about an hour and then he gave her what she needed. She later received a bill in the mail for a full hour of billing. I have never seen her so livid in her life. What a scoundrel!

---

Wait...he billed her for ONE hour and she was pissed?

---

He billed her for the hour that she thought he was asking about her and the family out of concern after knowing them for decades. He did not just bill her for one hour total.

dimitrig said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

Wait...he billed her for ONE hour and she was pissed?

---

He billed her for the hour that she thought he was asking about her and the family out of concern after knowing them for decades. He did not just bill her for one hour total.

---

I see, I misunderstood. I thought he did quite a bit of work and only billed her for one hour.

What you do in that case is you don't pay.

GBear4Life said:

---

Professor Henry Higgins said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

Professor Henry Higgins said:

---

As for the rest of your babbling, you don't know much about anything. If you're lucky, you may learn someday.

---

You are out of your league here, clearly, but you'll never give any ground when cornered.

---

I don't concede anything to do the stupid and uninformed.

---

Some may be waiting....

---

TL;DR;DGAF

How the coronavirus crisis gave Gavin Newsom his leadership moment


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/12/how-the-coronavirus-crisis-gave-gavin-newsom-his-leadership-moment?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Gavin at it again. First, prisoners and now unemployment aid for illegal immigrants. Make California suck again.

https://abc7.com/california-lawsuit-economic-relief-undocumented-workers-coronavirus-immigrants-ca-covid-19/6124876/

BearForce2 said:

---

Gavin at it again. First, prisoners and now unemployment aid for illegal immigrants. Make California suck again.

https://abc7.com/california-lawsuit-economic-relief-undocumented-workers-coronavirus-immigrants-ca-covid-19/6124876/

---

"These are *********people too!" - Newscum

Let the illegals, criminals, and deadbeats live on Sycasey and Professor's block, observe their neighborhood turn into a 3rd world hell hole, and proceed to watch them engage in white flight

GBear4Life said:

---

Let the illegals, criminals, and deadbeats live on Sycasey and Professor's block, observe their neighborhood turn into a 3rd world hell hole, and proceed to watch them engage in white flight

---

D I C K.

Man, I live in Oakland. I'm not scared of living in a city with crime.

Guys, Sycasey doesn't care about being surrounded by crime. Everybody need not worry about crime rates and its implications. He doesn't care about the poor people who can't avoid the ghettos of Oakland, it doesn't bother him.

I'd be comfortable packing all deadbeats into Oakland since it's already a bonafide sh*thole, but unfortunately not everybody in Oakland is as deluded about crime as you, and actually would prefer their elected officials stop putting them on the street

The people who like to talk about releasing prisoners never talk about the victims and their perspective, no consideration at all. They mention the high incarceration rate in comparison to other countries or the rising costs of keeping these inmates but never the victims and their stories.

Secondly, where will the newly released prisoners live? In Berkeley, it's now illegal for landlords to conduct background checks to potential renters. At least these guys are consistent with their thought process in this regard even though they're crazy to think anyone is better off not knowing their next door neighbor was a previously convicted murderer or rapist.

BearForce2 said:

---

The people who like to talk about releasing prisoners never talk about the victims and their perspective, no consideration at all. They mention the high incarceration rate in comparison to other countries or the rising costs of keeping these inmates but never the victims and their stories.

Secondly, where will the newly released prisoners live? In Berkeley, it's now illegal for landlords to conduct background checks to potential renters. At least these guys are consistent with their thought process in this regard even though they're crazy to think anyone is better off not knowing their next door neighbor was a previously convicted murderer or rapist.

---

I know my neighbor (not next door but nearby) is a previously convicted rapist. He was released from prison and now lives with his sister. That is a true statement.

Question: How am I better off?

I guess I keep a little closer eye on him, but what else can I do? What should I do? What rights does he have?

BearForce2 said:

---

The people who like to talk about releasing prisoners never talk about the victims and their perspective, no consideration at all. They mention the high incarceration rate in comparison to other countries or the rising costs of keeping these inmates but never the victims and their stories.

Secondly, where will the newly released prisoners live? In Berkeley, it's now illegal for landlords to conduct background checks to potential renters. At least these guys are consistent with their thought process in this regard even though they're crazy to think anyone is better off not knowing their next door neighbor was a previously convicted murderer or rapist.

---

I have a lot of neighbors who could have done all kinds of things and I'd never know it. This is simply a consequence of living in a civilization with any measure of privacy.

Pretty much every convicted criminal has a victim. Exactly how much should the victim's desires determine the criminal's punishment? Just at the time of sentencing? Forever? It seems to me that this is a balancing act that society is already doing, to varying degrees of success. You don't get to just say, "The victim doesn't want it, so that's it." The victim might want the prisoner drawn and quartered, but that doesn't mean we're going to do it.

So I do not ignore the victim's feelings here, but it is one of many factors. In these cases it seems like there are a lot of other factors to indicate these particular prisoners are legitimately reformed and no longer a major threat to society. Again, it's worth noting that Newsom's order doesn't immediately release the prisoners, it merely makes them eligible to be reviewed and approved for parole. There are multiple levels of checks in the process here, which is why I'm not over here living in fear based on the decision like GBear is.

Quote:

---

I know my neighbor (not next door but nearby) is a previously convicted rapist. He was released from prison and now lives with his sister. That is a true statement.

Question: How am I better off?

I guess I keep a little closer eye on him, but what else can I do? What should I do? What rights does he have?

---

California prisoners by crime. Guys who are experienced in assault and weapons make good neighbors.

dimitrig said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

The people who like to talk about releasing prisoners never talk about the victims and their perspective, no consideration at all. They mention the high incarceration rate in comparison to other countries or the rising costs of keeping these inmates but never the victims and their stories.

Secondly, where will the newly released prisoners live? In Berkeley, it's now illegal for landlords to conduct background checks to potential renters. At least these guys are consistent with their thought process in this regard even though they're crazy to think anyone is better off not knowing their next door neighbor was a previously convicted murderer or rapist.

---

I know my neighbor (not next door but nearby) is a previously convicted rapist. He was released from prison and now lives with his sister. That is a true statement.

Question: How am I better off?

I guess I keep a little closer eye on him, but what else can I do? What should I do? What rights does he have?

---

I think you're good. Probably a 95% chance he never committed rape and was me-too'd by a vindictive, emotionally unhinged female.

I don't recall anybody making an argument that the whims of the victim should be taken into consideration in sentencing. Quite the contrary -- they should have none. Nobody outside the justice system and its parameters.

BearForce2 said:

---

The people who like to talk about releasing prisoners never talk about the victims and their perspective, no consideration at all. They mention the high incarceration rate in comparison to other countries or the rising costs of keeping these inmates but never the victims and their stories.

Secondly, where will the newly released prisoners live? In Berkeley, it's now illegal for landlords to conduct background checks to potential renters. At least these guys are consistent with their thought process in this regard even though they're crazy to think anyone is better off not knowing their next door neighbor was a previously convicted murderer or rapist.

---

Again, "leniancy" and "compassion" are often warm prejudice masquerading as forgiveness and reasoned opportunity for a 2nd chance.

They are narrow in scope -- they have an emotional bias towards redemption and it doesn't occur to them about the victims and more importantly the potential future victims that it's at the expense of.

Of course there has to be a spectrum of sentencing, I'm simply arguing it tends to be weak (sometimes it's too harsh).

Anecdotal, but this isn't that uncommon: The Cheshire Murders. HBO Documentary. Those guys had no reseaon to be on the streets. They had a rap sheet a mile long. This is unacceptable. I don't care how crowded prisons are. If a subject has demonstrated they cannot behave in a civil society without violating persons and their property, you're done. I have no tears for you. Only tears for their victims, and tears of joy for the community to be free from one more human trash can.