If I were required to choose between the most dishonest professions, the choices being politicians, con-men, or attorneys, then I would choose attorneys as the hands down favorite. And if it were a bet on a Blackjack table, I would double down if the attorney is also a politician. And it is actually redundant to explain why both are already con-men. But, if intellectual dishonesty is systemic, then the practice of law and law-making by attorneys is where it will be found by the truck load.
So, if we equivocate attorneys with actual pigs, which isn’t all that far of a stretch, and we assume that all attorneys talk out of their ass the majority of the time, then we can further assume that their arguments are almost always shit, except when they are actually flatulence. But rarely, if not ever, will their arguments be considered a breath of fresh air.
Now, you might ask why I have a problem with attorneys. I guess it’s because I abhor stupidity, especially when it’s willful, while also despising intellectual dishonesty, also especially when it’s knowing and willful. Both of which attorneys exhibit in abundance. But as a real life example, I would like to show you a Facebook post that I made and some of the comments that were posted in relation to it. I’ll let you figure out which ones were actually made by a real-life attorney.
The post dealt with the Articles of Confederation and the actual unconstitutionality of the Constitution for the United States of America itself as being directly violative of those Articles. This is the discussion that followed.
Eric Slafter Constitution was further only intially ratfied by 9 states. Which was enough only according to those who created it.
Jacob Crowell · 3 mutual friends
Brad Isley No they were never repealed, statehood would not exist without them.
Johnny Gold You should hop in your time machine, go back and set them straight.
Johnny Gold Article 4 Summary:
Elaborates upon the intent “to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this union,” and to establish equal treatment and freedom of movement for the free inhabitants of each state to pass unhindered between the states, excluding “paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice.” All these people are entitled to equal rights established by the state into which he travels. If a crime is committed in one state and the perpetrator flees to another state, he will be extradited to and tried in the state in which the crime was comitted.
Basically, it seems like states can do whatever they want, which in turn means their cops can do whatever they want. No thanks. I’ll take the bare-bones minimum protections offered to people under the bill of rights, the ADA, the FLSA and FMLA etc. before I’d turn back the clock to when there was zero accountability in terms of human rights.
Tao Lauw That’s a false premise Johnny. There was actually MORE accountability in every respect than there is at all today. A corrupt public official was IMMEDIATELY and bodily removed from office, publicly disgraced, and forced to leave town on a rail while covered in tar and feathers and all his property forfeited back to those in the community that his actions had harmed.
And if that public official was actually responsible for unlawfully causing someone’s death, then his sentence was to be publicly hung and all his property forfeited.
What you are forgetting is that in THOSE days, the people didn’t consider the state as something that could function in complete autonomy in ANY manner without their express approval, most especially where it involved their rights, lives and property.
Eric Slafter is correct that many of the founding fathers repulsed the idea of a Bill of Rights expressly because they believed that some ne’er do-well, under the guise of ‘legality’ would attempt to declare such a list as the ONLY rights the people actually held rather than an express limitation upon any and all powers of government to deprive the people of those rights without due process.
And it turns out that they were absolutely correct. Today, we have attorneys in every level of government making the argument that the people have no right to do X because the state or federal constitutions don’t specifically mention it as being a right. They completely ignore the clause that state’s the Bill of Rights is NOT in any way intended to limit any OTHER rights of the people or to remove any rights from them whatsoever.
Furthermore, the people have EVERY right to do ANYTHING that in itself does not arbitrarily, negligently or intentionally detrimentally affect the rights and property of another. Otherwise, our rights are LIMITLESS in EVERY respect. And despite the bullshit illegitimate opinions of various courts, the peoples rights ARE absolute in their right of free exercise EXCEPT under the circumstances I just mentioned OR when they must be surrendered in the interest of justice due to a conviction for having committed a violation of those same conditions.
So, I think I would MUCH rather have a community of people and the protections of that community that made it possible to directly control our public servants criminal behavior for fear of their own personal safety and property and in such a way that their criminal brethren in office could NOT protect and prevent them from receiving the justice that was due and owed them.
Eric Slafter The constitution was meant to be read with the declaration of independence which itself being the founding document brought forward the idea that rights where inherent … and natural. And unalienable. And that gov. Only gain it’s just power from the consent of the goverened. Some how that last got twisted into implied consent by voteing for your masters. I might add an idea that many tories and loyalists prior found repugnant. Believing only the monarchy could bestow rights…. I belive Dickinson was one of the colonists that made such an argument.
Johnny Gold My premise is not false but rather firmly grounded in historical fact. The atrocity of slavery was permitted under the Articles of Confederation which you correctly observe required unanimous consent to amend. I don’t think any of the southern colonies would have voluntarily consented to the abolition of slavery. In fact, I seriously question whether some southern states today would give such consent voluntarily. Sorry Eddie, but I can’t support that. I’ll take my bogus Constitution over that any day. Let me know how that time machine is coming along.
Tao Lauw Johnny Gold – Another bad starting point. The constitutional replacement made SPECIFIC exceptions IN FAVOR of slavery in relation to census counts and other points. It in no way whatsoever abolished it or signified disapproval of same at it’s inception.
It was not until MUCH later, AFTER the war, two in fact, AS WELL AS an amendment process, that it ever even mentioned the ending of slavery.
So, unless you are inferring that the founding fathers were given unanimous consent to abolish slavery, which you already admitted the southern colonies would NOT have approved of, then your premise MUST be false.
Otherwise, you are inferring that the constitutional convention, despite a lack of unanimous consent of all the colonies, was convened, at least in part, so that a select few could initially write the constitution with the future knowledge and intent of ending slavery. And this is despite the fact that many of those same men were slave owners.
Or are you inferring that they were relying upon a crystal ball at the constitutional convention?
If so, then I’m sorry, but the point of your argument is STILL false and off-point as the original inception of the constitution had no intention or predilection of addressing the issue of slavery.
Eric Slafter Thomas Jefferson as much as he didn’t like slavery was himself a slave holder. And the point was made and rejected outright to elminate slavery in the new constitution…
I might add slavery has not to this day been abolished. .. if you belive it has you need to reread the 13th amendment and what it in fact did. Which was simply change the decsion of ownership to the state.
As such this is why we have prisions for profit to this day. And why the jails conscript labor out to ge, and whirlpool for exports of washer and dryers at a rate of .34 cents an hour.
So your premise is flawed all the way around.
Johnny Gold So both of you admit that you support slavery. Good to know. Make a meme of that.
Tao Lauw Johnny Gold – And yet ANOTHER false assertion based upon a faulty premise and unsubstantiated by any facts or evidence whatsoever. An ACCURATE statement of facts and history is NOT the same thing as CONDONING anything that occurred in that period of history. Now you are simply trying to use knowingly false and uniquely attorney inspired trick arguments to make an equally invalid point.
Case in point, just when did you stop beating your wife or girlfriend? After all, you have completely failed to address the fact that the articles of confederation did not ALSO specifically prohibit wife/woman beating, so you MUST have supported it because you AREN’T trying to make any argument against it! Rather, you are simply arguing the specifics of what was written and what was actually done in relation to what was written, right?
Johnny Gold Eddie, I’n not the one advocating for a system that regarded slavery as lawful – you are. There are no attorney/Jedi mind tricks here – only your own words. It would seem you’d also support a system of government that would deny women and non-landowners the right to vote. If you want to turn back the clock then tou have to turn back all of it. You don’t get to pick and choose which parts of this nation’s predecessor government you wish to embrace. You have to embrace all of it – and in the case of he Articles of Confederation that means embracing slavery and unequal rights for women. 😄
Eric Slafter Johnny the argument to be made if someone was inclined to do so…and it latter was back them prior to the 13th amendment which technically legalized slavery.
Was if a person could be property. Or if by race a indvidual was not a person or human being…but an animal. The 13th amendment actually removed that argument and made it lawful to have slaves if it was punsihemnt. So are you arguing for slavery since your such a supporter of the current constitution. …lol
Eric Slafter Read the arguments in Congress before the cival war both for and against slavery.
Johnny Gold Eric, your grammar is atrocious and your spelling is even worse. Furthermore, arguments on the floor of the legislature are not law. It’s just a bunch of talking. The law is the law – and where there is a question, the law is what the courts say it is. The law is not what the distinguished gentleman from the state of wherever thinks it ought to be. This is government 101.
Eric SlafterWell then genius the question would under the constitution without the 13th amendment in regards to slavery would be what???? Who can deny life liberty exc…. by what power???
Then try reading it. And you’ll come to terms with what you clearly don’t understand. Attacks on spelling and grammer aside.
Tao LauwJohnny Gold – “Eddie, I’n not the one advocating for a system that regarded slavery as lawful – you are.”
Again, yet ANOTHER misstatement of the facts to try and make your inaccurate and unsubstantiated argument that the Articles of Confederation were properly set aside despite the terms and conditions of the mutual compact that formed them look valid. Thus proving the falsity of your statement “.. there are no attorney/Jedi mind tricks here… .”
To say that an ACCURATE discussion of the various points of American history is the equivalent of advocacy for each and every aspect of the points of discussion is not only intellectually dishonest, it is also self-deprecating as a display of an extremely low level of intellectual comprehension.
To make such a claim is about as accurate an allegation as that of saying the mere discussion of who is the best bald or balding Hollywood actors is the equivalent of saying that by even engaging in the discussion I am advocating for premature hair loss and male pattern baldness. In other words, it’s a bogus bullshit attorney argument based upon a false and misleading equivocation. And honestly, I would not have expected anything less or even approaching mature discussion of the factual merits of the original statement.
However, please keep commenting, because it provides great ammunition for proving why certain professions should not be entrusted with honest intent and action.
Johnny GoldOkay Eddie, while you’re fantasizing, please get back to me on that time machine. I have some action I’d like to lay down on last year’s World’s Series.
Johnny GoldThat makes you an amateurish wanna-be vermin, Eddie. Lol.
Tao LauwNot really, considering that MY goal is to show how the crap that attorneys try to make appear lawfully binding upon all so as to enrich themselves through the creation of conflict where none should legitimately exist, is actually a complete load of elitist horse crap, or in this case, pig shit. Making MY efforts the complete and total opposite of what attorneys do. lol
As you can see, the attorney in the discussion was constantly trying to establish a false equivocation and dichotomy in the same breath, and when that didn’t work, he resorted to ad hominem attacks in a pathetic attempt to bolster his unfounded and equally unsubstantiated assertions that I was advocating slavery simply because I was discussing the facts relating to the invalidity of the constitutional convention when examined under the terms of the Articles of Confederation.
Furthermore, before the end of the second day of discussion was even reached, this attorney decided to resort to juvenile name-calling and parentage insults to myself and other commenters, which he quickly came back to delete before I personally got the chance to see them, and then decided that he would “Unfriend” and then block me on Facebook because he couldn’t make me see him as somehow superior in intellect and knowledge. And why should I when he has aptly demonstrated that such is not the case?
You can decide for yourself if anything he said in the posts memorialized here is true or false. Which really shouldn’t be difficult considering the simpleminded manner in which he tried to create the appearance of facts where none actually existed. The exact same kind of bullshit that they all-too-often pull in a court room while making it appear to the uneducated and uninitiated that they are actually doing their jobs properly and in the best interest of their client and justice instead of “just us,” meaning their own private profit and gain.
So, do you understand yet WHY you should NEVER trust your fate to the honesty and integrity of a profession of intellectually and morally dishonest criminals who profit from creating conflict and misery for their own selfish gain made entirely at our expense? At least pig shit would be useful as fertilizer. But, without an added incentive, like that of honey or rotten meat for example, I don’t think an attorney could even attract a group of honest flies to his or her carcass on its own merits, even if left to bake in the sun.
Tao of Law 
Johnny “Gold”. You were arguing with a jew. What makes you expect an honest debate there? Besides that, this guy tries to control your attitudes and behavior by attempting to shame you while raising the issue of slavery. You could have also turned that shaming around by informing that jew that the slave trade and ownership in the Americas was dominated by jews, as they openly acknowledge in early editions of the Encyclopedia Judiaca, and which is well documented by scholars such as Professor Tony Martin. They owned the slave ships. The auctions weren’t held on the sabboth. Jewish families such as Monsanto made their fortunes off of slavery.
LikeLike