Thompson Lobbied For Abortion Group After All

#252
#252
CSpindizzy said:
How many staunchly political people in your firm argue political cases for the other side?
Click to expand...
One of my best friends is one of the staunchest Democrats in Davidson County. His father is an elected Circuit Judge. He regularly takes up the cause of GOP members against metro Nashville when the money is right. I've got a number of associates and classmates who are left of Abby Hoffman, but lobby for tobacco, defense, and corporate interests. They like their Mercedes and country club memberships more than their political dogma.
 
#253
#253
hatvol96 said:
If he were an election law expert and the money was right? Yes? Do you want a list of every defense attorney who has ever been a prosecutor? Every EPA lawyer who has gone to work for Dow Chemicals?
Click to expand...

Let me ask you this. Is he an ideologue? Does he fit the description of what we're talking about? Is he an ideologue who would sell out for money?
 
#254
#254
BigPapaVol said:
you regularly believe your points are missed or misconstrued or something of that nature. You ain't that deep. I got the point, unless it's something different than what you wrote.
Click to expand...

Clearly my point was missed since your response made no sense to what I was talking about.
 
#255
#255
hatvol96 said:
If he were an election law expert and the money was right? Yes? Do you want a list of every defense attorney who has ever been a prosecutor? Every EPA lawyer who has gone to work for Dow Chemicals?
Click to expand...

First confirm if they were an ideologue from the get-go before they 'sold out'.
 
#256
#256
CSpindizzy said:
Let me ask you this. Is he an ideologue? Does he fit the description of what we're talking about? Is he an ideologue who would sell out for money?
Click to expand...
I'm simply telling you, and I'm certain that I've got more real experience in this than most, that the number of attorneys/lobbyists who wouldn't change sides for a better deal is infitesimal. The kind of ideologue you seem to be describing is an endangered species. The days of William Jennings Bryant are long since over.
 
#257
#257
hatvol96 said:
I'm simply telling you, and I'm certain that I've got more real experience in this than most, that the number of attorneys/lobbyists who wouldn't change sides for a better deal is infitesimal. The kind of ideologue you seem to be describing is an endangered species. The days of William Jennings Bryant are long since over.
Click to expand...

But the kind I am describing is what we're arguing about...the ones you say sell out if the money is right. You didn't answer my question on Bennett. Why did you pick him? Were you implying he was some right wing ideologue who clearly HAS sold out?
 
#258
#258
hatvol96 said:
I'm simply telling you, and I'm certain that I've got more real experience in this than most, that the number of attorneys/lobbyists who wouldn't change sides for a better deal is infitesimal. The kind of ideologue you seem to be describing is an endangered species. The days of William Jennings Bryant are long since over.
Click to expand...

So tell me more. Are you saying that most attorneys are purely in it for money alone? That the law itself matters not to them? They're happy to make the law work which ever way the money flows? Real question, not being a smarta$$.
 
#259
#259
CSpindizzy said:
Clearly my point was missed since your response made no sense to what I was talking about.
Click to expand...
let me walk through this. You were saying that it's easy for firms to argue against their ideology because there's no real name or face behind it. You made the asinine point that it might be simple for a firm to forgo its ideologies, but it's not that simple for individuals to go against their own feelings. I stated that they're attorneys and not preachers meaning they are money whores before they are ideologues, unlike preachers who we would expect to live what they say. If you meant something else, you said it poorly.
 
#260
#260
BigPapaVol said:
let me walk through this. You were saying that it's easy for firms to argue against their ideology because there's no real name or face behind it. You made the asinine point that it might be simple for a firm to forgo its ideologies, but it's not that simple for individuals to go against their own feelings. I stated that they're attorneys and not preachers meaning they are money whores before they are ideologues, unlike preachers who we would expect to live what they say. If you meant something else, you said it poorly.
Click to expand...

So you can presume there is money on both sides, how hard would it be to argue your side and still make plenty of money?
 
#261
#261
allvol123 said:
So you can presume there is money on both sides, how hard would it be to argue your side and still make plenty of money?
Click to expand...
probably isn't if you're a good attorney or work for a reputable firm in the right practice area. Problem is, firms rarely pick and choose, the clients do. First come (with appropriate money), first served.
 
#262
#262
BigPapaVol said:
let me walk through this. You were saying that it's easy for firms to argue against their ideology because there's no real name or face behind it. You made the asinine point that it might be simple for a firm to forgo its ideologies, but it's not that simple for individuals to go against their own feelings. I stated that they're attorneys and not preachers meaning they are money whores before they are ideologues, unlike preachers who we would expect to live what they say. If you meant something else, you said it poorly.
Click to expand...

Actually I didn't make any point assinine or not about firms. Hat mentioned firms and I said I'm not talking about them. You must be talking about lawyers in general and I am talking specifically about ideologue attorneys. I have been arguing about this group of lawyers in general sticking to their ideology and fighting for those causes. Hat says these types would overwhelmingly switch sides and argue something counter to their ideology on a matter if the money was right.

If you didn't gather that from the entire topic and multiple posts you read them poorly.
 
#263
#263
Most of these ideological groups have an entire team of lawyers who argue their points before the courts. NARAL and NRTL both have very reputable teams with decent backgrounds. I venture to say NARAL's legal team are probably made up of pro-choice minded people and vice versa for NRTL.
 
#264
#264
CSpindizzy said:
Actually I didn't make any point assinine or not about firms. Hat mentioned firms and I said I'm not talking about them. You must be talking about lawyers in general and I am talking specifically about ideologue attorneys. I have been arguing about this group of lawyers in general sticking to their ideology and fighting for those causes. Hat says these types would overwhelmingly switch sides and argue something counter to their ideology on a matter if the money was right.

If you didn't gather that from the entire topic and multiple posts you read them poorly.
Click to expand...
Very frickin' weak. Hat and I both made the point that ideologue attorneys are the vast minority. Your argument that you were limiting the rest to those few is crap. Clearly if you defined them as the type who wouldn't swap, then you made yourself correct by pointing to them as those who wouldn't swap. How stupid is that? Attorneys, by and large, are money grubbers first (and I suspect nearly all of them that are great attorneys).
 
#265
#265
BigPapaVol said:
Very frickin' weak. Hat and I both made the point that ideologue attorneys are the vast minority. Your argument that you were limiting the rest to those few is crap. Clearly if you defined them as the type who wouldn't swap, then you made yourself correct by pointing to them as those who wouldn't swap. How stupid is that? Attorneys, by and large, are money grubbers first (and I suspect nearly all of them that are great attorneys).
Click to expand...

Very frickin' weak? Sorry if reality is weak. You have not read the earlier posts. Nice of you to reinvent the argument but Hat argued that those who fight for these causes they believe in would easily sell out if the price was right. So Hat defined the universe as those attorneys who are in essence ideologues.

Please feel free to go back and see where this little discussion about attorneys who fight for the causes they believe in got started.

It's hard to argue with you when you don't even know what was discussed in the first place. We had a smaller universe of attorneys we were discussing. I'm not sure how you concluded that we were discussing attorneys in general. But again, I defined my point multiple times even after you jumped in and STILL you didn't get it. While you say I poorly stated my point and that it is weak, I say you are completely clueless on this and have been arguing with me about something I'm not even talking about.
 
#266
#266
BigPapaVol said:
Attorneys, by and large, are money grubbers first (and I suspect nearly all of them that are great attorneys).
Click to expand...

I will not argue that point. I agree. But those who are fighting for specific social/political causes are pretty loyal to their causes. As I referenced, look at the organizations for these causes. They typically have loyal attorneys who believe in their causes working for them. Many have been either with these groups or like-minded groups for years. As a name to toss out this select ideology has Jay Sekulow.
 
#267
#267
allvol123 said:
So tell me more. Are you saying that most attorneys are purely in it for money alone? That the law itself matters not to them? They're happy to make the law work which ever way the money flows? Real question, not being a smarta$$.
Click to expand...
Yes. Yes. Yes.
 
#268
#268
CSpindizzy said:
Very frickin' weak? Sorry if reality is weak. You have not read the earlier posts. Nice of you to reinvent the argument but Hat argued that those who fight for these causes they believe in would easily sell out if the price was right. So Hat defined the universe as those attorneys who are in essence ideologues.

Please feel free to go back and see where this little discussion about attorneys who fight for the causes they believe in got started.

It's hard to argue with you when you don't even know what was discussed in the first place. We had a smaller universe of attorneys we were discussing. I'm not sure how you concluded that we were discussing attorneys in general. But again, I defined my point multiple times even after you jumped in and STILL you didn't get it. While you say I poorly stated my point and that it is weak, I say you are completely clueless on this and have been arguing with me about something I'm not even talking about.
Click to expand...
you're far better at conducting poles than lucid arguments
 
#269
#269
BigPapaVol said:
you're far better at conducting poles than lucid arguments
Click to expand...

And you're neither good at spelling or comprehension of lucid arguments. Great comeback. When you bother reading previous posts look me up. I'm more than happy to continue the discussion. Until then it's all you chasing your tail in circles.

chasetail.gif
 
#270
#270
CSpindizzy said:
And you're neither good at spelling or comprehension of lucid arguments. Great comeback. When you bother reading previous posts look me up. I'm more than happy to continue the discussion. Until then it's all you chasing your tail in circles.
Click to expand...
presumably, you missed the pun, but I'm not surprised.

I've read the posts and am still correct. You continue to make self-fulfilling statements and you'll always be technically correct, just never right.
 
#271
#271
BigPapaVol said:
presumably, you missed the pun, but I'm not surprised.

I've read the posts and am still correct. You continue to make self-fulfilling statements and you'll always be technically correct, just never right.
Click to expand...

Oh I didn't miss the pun. Just didn't find it worth commenting on.

How are you correct? Delusional doesn't make you right either.
 
#272
#272
CSpindizzy said:
Oh I didn't miss the pun. Just didn't find it worth commenting on.

How are you correct? Delusional doesn't make you right either.
Click to expand...
i might be delusional, but I'm not so pitiful that I'm trying to rekindle a senseless argument from days ago in which I was clearly wrong.
 
#273
#273
Sorry. I was in DC. Again, how was I clearly wrong and you clearly right? Can you not answer a simple question? Sorry if I don't hang around every day waiting on you to prove your statements. I figured in the interest of charity, I'd give you another chance to actually back up where you were right. I guess I'll be waiting another week if not more.
 
#274
#274
CSpindizzy said:
Sorry. I was in DC. Again, how was I clearly wrong and you clearly right? Can you not answer a simple question? Sorry if I don't hang around every day waiting on you to prove your statements. I figured in the interest of charity, I'd give you another chance to actually back up where you were right. I guess I'll be waiting another week if not more.
Click to expand...
How's this? You were clearly right and I, clearly wrong. You win. It might be a pyrrhic victory, but one earned by your craftiness, cunning and superior debating skill. Well done.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top