snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Urban Legends > Inboxer Rebellion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 17 December 2009, 03:04 PM
RCIAG's Avatar
RCIAG RCIAG is offline
 
Join Date: 29 May 2009
Location: Gaithersburg, MD
Posts: 1,390
Default Lawyers as elected representatives

Just got this a few minutes ago from the same jackass that sent the Cash for Clunkers email this morning. I actually have stuff to do so I can't obsess & research or even read the damn TLNR right now so I thought you all could get a head start on it for me.

SUBJECT: LAWYER'S AS ELECTED REPS

Someone really nailed this down correctly.

This is very interesting! I never thought about it this way.
Perhaps this is why so many physicians are conservative or Republicans.

The Democratic Party has become the Lawyers’ Party.

Barack Obama is a lawyer.

Michelle Obama is a lawyer.

Hillary Clinton is a lawyer.

Bill Clinton is a lawyer.

John Edwards is a lawyer.

Elizabeth Edwards is a lawyer.

Every Democrat nominee since 1984 went to law school (although Gore
did not graduate).

Every Democrat vice presidential nominee since 1976, except for
Lloyd Bentsen, went to law school.

Look at leaders of the Democrat Party in Congress:

Harry Reid is a lawyer.

Nancy Pelosi is a lawyer.

The Republican Party is different.

President Bush is a businessman.

Vice President Cheney is a businessman.

The leaders of the Republican Revolution:

Newt Gingrich was a history professor.

Tom Delay was an exterminator. Dick Armey was an economist.

House Minority Leader Boehner was a plastic manufacturer.

The former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is a heart surgeon.

Who was the last Republican president who was a lawyer? Gerald
Ford, who left office 31 years ago and who barely won the Republican
nomination as a sitting president, running against Ronald Reagan in 1976..
The Republican Party is made up of real people doing real work, who are
often the targets of lawyers.

The Democrat Party is made up of lawyers. Democrats mock and scorn
men who create wealth, like Bush and Cheney, or who heal the sick, like
Frist, or who immerse themselves in history, like Gingrich.

The Lawyers’ Party sees these sorts of people, who provide goods
and services that people want, as the enemies of America . And, so we
have seen the procession of official enemies, in the eyes of the Lawyers’
Party, grow.

Against whom do Hillary and Obama rail? Pharmaceutical companies,
oil companies, hospitals, manufacturers, fast food restaurant chains,
large retail businesses, bankers, and anyone producing anything of value
in our nation.

This is the natural consequence of viewing everything through the
eyes of lawyers. Lawyers solve problems by successfully representing
their clients, in this case the American people. Lawyers seek to have
new laws passed, they seek to win lawsuits, they press appellate courts
to overturn precedent, and lawyers always parse language to favor their
side.

Confined to the narrow practice of law, that is fine. But it is an
awful way to govern a great nation. When politicians as lawyers begin to
view some Americans as clients and other Americans as opposing parties,
then the role of the legal system in our life becomes all-consuming.
Some Americans become “adverse parties” of our ver y government. We are
not all litigants in some vast social class-action suit. We are citizens
of a republic that promises us a great deal of freedom from laws, from
courts, and from lawyers.

Today, we are drowning in laws; we are contorted by judicial
decisions; we are driven to distraction by omnipresent lawyers in all
parts of our once private lives. America has a place for laws and
lawyers, but that place is modest and reasonable, not vast and unchecked.
When the most important decision for our next president is whom he will
appoint to the Supreme Court, the role of lawyers and the law in America
is too big. When lawyers use criminal prosecution as a continuation of
politics by other means, as happened in the lynching of Scooter Libby and
Tom Delay, then the power of lawyers in America is too great. When
House Democrats sue America in order to hamstring our efforts to learn
what our enemies are planning to do to us, then the role of litigation in
America has become crushing.

We cannot expect the Lawyers’ Party to provide real change, real
reform or real hope in America ! Most Americans know that a republic in
which every major government action must be blessed by nine unelected
judges is not what Washington intended in 1789. Most Americans grasp
that we cannot fight a war when ACLU lawsuits snap at the heels of our
defenders. Most Americans intuit that more lawyers and judges will not
restore declining moral values or spark the spirit of enterprise in our
economy.

Perhaps Americans will understand that change cannot be brought to
our nation by those lawyers who already largely dictate American society
and business. Perhaps Americans will see that hope does not come from
the mouths of lawyers but from personal dreams nourished by hard work.
Perhaps Americans will embrace the truth that more lawyers with more
power will only make our problems worse.

The United States has 5% of the world’s population and 66% of the
world’s lawyers! Tort (Legal) reform legislation has been introduced in
congress several times in the last several years to limit punitive
damages in ridiculous lawsuits such as “spilling hot coffee on yourself
and suing the establishment that sold it to you” and also to limit
punitive damages in huge medical malpractice lawsuits. This legislation
has continually been blocked from even being voted on by the Democrat
Party. When you see that 97% of the political contributions from the
American Trial Lawyers Association goes to the Democrat Party, then you
realize who is responsible for our medical and product costs being so
high!

Last edited by RCIAG; 17 December 2009 at 03:09 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 17 December 2009, 03:20 PM
AnglRdr's Avatar
AnglRdr AnglRdr is offline
 
Join Date: 06 June 2002
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 50,681
Default

Gore didn't go to law school; he went to divinity school (and did not graduate).

However, when a body is elected to make laws, wouldn't knowledge of the law be a good thing?

That letter does represent something that appears to be endemic in the Republican party, and that is this notion that all perspectives on an issue are equal. They simply are not.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 17 December 2009, 03:26 PM
RCIAG's Avatar
RCIAG RCIAG is offline
 
Join Date: 29 May 2009
Location: Gaithersburg, MD
Posts: 1,390
Default

My first thought after skimming it & not reading it all was that "Oh yeah, I forgot, The Terminator & Bonzo's buddy were/are better at their jobs than people that actually went to 4 years of college & then law school."



In fact, if you all can't come up with something better I may just hafta forward THAT as a response along with instructions on how to set up a contact list that DOESN'T include me.

So if I show up here a LOT more in the next few days, you'll know WHY I got canned!!

Seriously, how are you supposed to respect your bosses, who are supposed to be setting the example, when they forward garbage like this! I mean my father in law & brother in law are lawyers fercrissakes & my FIL is a life-long Republican. Though lately he's got Libertarian leanings.

Last edited by RCIAG; 17 December 2009 at 03:35 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 17 December 2009, 04:01 PM
Canuckistan's Avatar
Canuckistan Canuckistan is offline
 
Join Date: 27 March 2005
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 30,122
Roll eyes

I fail to see why lawyers are inherently worse at being lawmakers than, say, businessmen.

Quote:
LAWYER'S AS ELECTED REPS
Apparently, educators aren't much for being lawmakers, either.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 17 December 2009, 04:21 PM
Simply Madeline's Avatar
Simply Madeline Simply Madeline is offline
 
Join Date: 15 October 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 9,525
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RCIAG View Post
SUBJECT: LAWYER'S AS ELECTED REPS
Lawyer's what as elected reps? Which lawyer?
Quote:
The Democratic Party has become the Lawyers’ Party.
Dude, you forgot your "Republican talking points handbook". It's democrat party!

Quote:
Tort (Legal) reform legislation has been introduced in congress several times in the last several years to limit punitive damages in ridiculous lawsuits such as “spilling hot coffee on yourself and suing the establishment that sold it to you” and also to limit punitive damages in huge medical malpractice lawsuits.
Arrrggh! The McDonald's case referenced above is continually mischaracterized.

From: http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm

Quote:
McFact No. 2: McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious injuries - more than 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the past decade have been settled by the Corporation - and yet they never so much as consulted a burn expert regarding the issue.

McFact No. 3: The woman involved in this infamous case suffered very serious injuries - third degree burns on her groin, thighs and buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay.

McFact No. 4: The woman, an 81-year old former department store clerk who had never before filed suit against anyone, said she wouldn't have brought the lawsuit against McDonald's had the Corporation not dismissed her request for compensation for medical bills.
ETA: I thought there was a snopes page on the McDonald's coffee case, but I searched and didn't find it. Did I imagine it?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 17 December 2009, 05:18 PM
Natalie Natalie is offline
 
Join Date: 15 January 2008
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 2,171
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simply Madeline View Post
ETA: I thought there was a snopes page on the McDonald's coffee case, but I searched and didn't find it. Did I imagine it?
There is a short bit in this article about the fake frivolous-lawsuit-awards email:
Quote:
[The suit] proved to be a perfectly legitimate action taken against a corporation that knew, thanks to a string of similar scaldings it had quietly been paying off, that its coffee was not just hot, but dangerously hot.
Approximately 2/3 of the way down the page.

ETA: The mention of Newt Gingrich makes me wonder how old this email actually is. The man resigned his seat 10 years ago, and hasn't been in the spotlight much since then. Tom Delay has been pushed out of the spotlight since he got caught in the Abrahamoff scandal nearly 5 years ago.

ETA2: Nancy Pelosi got her bachelors in political science and never pursued a graduate degree. I don't think she's ever been a lawyer.

Last edited by Natalie; 17 December 2009 at 05:35 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 17 December 2009, 05:35 PM
Loyhargil's Avatar
Loyhargil Loyhargil is offline
 
Join Date: 20 August 2004
Location: Iowa
Posts: 3,708
Default

Like AnglRdr said, knowing a bit about how the laws work is actually, er, kinda helpful when you're writing them.

Should be be upset because most legislative committees (at least at the state level) have a resource pool of attorneys to help them get the language right? For example, so they correctly use "shall" as a directive and "may" as a permissive?

And gosh, they couldn't think of one Republican attorney, past or present, in federal power? What about Bob Dole (who graduated from my alma mater)? And I don't think I'm over-reaching by saying he was a pretty darn well liked and respected Republican overall.

I didn't double-check the results that follow, but through congressmerge.com, you can search via party and profession. Checking "Republican" and entering the profession of "Attorney" gets you these stats:

Quote:
Database Search of the 111st Congress
(1st Session)
Your database search matched 63 members of Congress, including:

16 Senators and 47 Representatives
63 Republicans
You searched for members of Congress who fulfill all the following criteria:

They are Republicans.
Their Professional experience includes "Attorney".
Admittedly, the results for "Democrat" and "Attorney" are higher:

Quote:
Database Search of the 111st Congress
(1st Session)
Your database search matched 122 members of Congress, including:

25 Senators and 94 Representatives
122 Democrats
You searched for members of Congress who fulfill all the following criteria:

They are Democrats.
Their Professional experience includes "Attorney".
The biggest discrepancy is in the House, where there's twice as many Democrat Attorneys as Republican Attorneys. But there are currently about 435 members of the House. That makes (extremely rough math here) not quite 1/5 of them Democrat attorneys, and 1/7 of them Republican attorneys. That's somewhat proportional, isn't it? And about 1/3 of Senators are Republican attorneys, while about one half of Democrat Senators are attorneys.

I'm really, truly, not seeing a giant discrepancy here.

It's just a stupid argument to make. Stupid stupid stupid!
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 17 December 2009, 05:35 PM
RCIAG's Avatar
RCIAG RCIAG is offline
 
Join Date: 29 May 2009
Location: Gaithersburg, MD
Posts: 1,390
Default

OK, did some googling & found out that the head of the Republican National Committee, Maryland's own Michael Steele, is....wait for it.....A LAWYER!!

I have a nice little instructional email on how to make a distribution list in Outlook at the ready & as a PS to it I shall include that little bit of info.

Also since when was Michelle Obama elected anything? She's just the First Lady.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 17 December 2009, 05:36 PM
BringTheNoise's Avatar
BringTheNoise BringTheNoise is offline
 
Join Date: 10 November 2003
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
Posts: 7,304
Default

Quote:
The Democrat Party is made up of lawyers. Democrats mock and scorn
men who create wealth, like Bush and Cheney, or who heal the sick, like
Frist, or who immerse themselves in history, like Gingrich.
So running an oil company into the ground is "creating wealth" while running a succesful law practice is... what? Magically destroying money through voodoo?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 17 December 2009, 05:43 PM
Jahungo's Avatar
Jahungo Jahungo is offline
 
Join Date: 23 May 2007
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 5,351
Default

Quote:
Democrats mock and scorn men who create wealth, like Bush and Cheney, or who heal the sick,
And no one hates doctors more than the Chairman of the DNC!

And describing Bush's business career as "creating wealth" is more than a little generous.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 17 December 2009, 05:44 PM
AnglRdr's Avatar
AnglRdr AnglRdr is offline
 
Join Date: 06 June 2002
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 50,681
Default

Did GWB actually create wealth, by the way?
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 17 December 2009, 05:49 PM
Simply Madeline's Avatar
Simply Madeline Simply Madeline is offline
 
Join Date: 15 October 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 9,525
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnglRdr View Post
Did GWB actually create wealth, by the way?
For Halliburton (and its subsidiaries), sure.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 17 December 2009, 06:20 PM
RCIAG's Avatar
RCIAG RCIAG is offline
 
Join Date: 29 May 2009
Location: Gaithersburg, MD
Posts: 1,390
Default

Ok I have officially given up hope of doing anything else really productive today.

26 US Presidents were lawyers before they were Prez.

Jefferson, both Adams, Madison, Monroe, Van Buren, Polk, Fillmore, Pierce, yaddayaddayadda.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 17 December 2009, 10:19 PM
jimmy101_again jimmy101_again is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2005
Location: Greenwood, IN
Posts: 6,697
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simply Madeline View Post
For Halliburton (and its subsidiaries), sure.
Transferring wealth is not the same as creating wealth.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 18 December 2009, 01:21 AM
Ramblin' Dave's Avatar
Ramblin' Dave Ramblin' Dave is offline
 
Join Date: 11 May 2005
Location: Singapore
Posts: 13,120
D'oh!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simply Madeline View Post

Arrrggh! The McDonald's case referenced above is continually mischaracterized.
On top of everything else, ISTR reading the victim came from a locally (Albuquerque?) prominent family of conservative Republicans.


Really, the OP is just preaching to the choir. That's why it implies that Bush and Cheney were successful businessmen. The intended audience simply doesn't care that that's nonsense.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 18 December 2009, 01:52 AM
DesertRat's Avatar
DesertRat DesertRat is offline
 
Join Date: 02 May 2004
Location: Jacksonville, NC
Posts: 6,282
Default

Quote:
Seriously, how are you supposed to respect your bosses, who are supposed to be setting the example, when they forward garbage like this!
It's quite easy. You can acknowledge that people who have different views than yours are still intelligent, well-rounded people and that you don't have a monopoly on the truth.

For the record, I'm not a Republican and I don't agree with the OP. I'm of the same view as AnglRdr--expertise in the law is probably a desirable quality among those that make laws. The central premise of this piece is flawed.

HOWEVER... even though I feel it's wrong, it's still a well-written, well-argued statement. It's nowhere near some of the grade-school English tin-foil hat drivel that gets posted on this site, and while it is clearly partisan, it at least backs it up with a reasonable argument, as opposed to "OMFG Obama is teh muslim devil!!!111"

As much as I like this site, I've been dismayed in recent months by the trend of close-minded intellectual arrogance I've seen growing among some of the membership. I have no issue with people saying they disagree with a viewpoint, and arguing emphatically why it is wrong. What I do have a major issue with is the sheer hubris it takes to suggest that people are not worthy of respect (in others, that you are BETTER than them) simply because they disagree with you.

RCIAG, I apologize if it seems like I'm calling you out all by your lonesome; I'm not. Your post just happens to be the one that yanked on this hanging munchkin while I have time to respond. But to everyone here, conservative, liberal, whatever, who thinks your poop smells like ice cream and that anyone who holds alternative viewpoints is just, well, stupid--get over yourselves.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 18 December 2009, 02:19 AM
lord_feldon's Avatar
lord_feldon lord_feldon is offline
 
Join Date: 08 August 2007
Location: Ohio
Posts: 12,375
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DesertRat View Post
HOWEVER... even though I feel it's wrong, it's still a well-written, well-argued statement.
Except for the parts where a noun was substituted for an adjective because it's an Approved Slur. That alone sucks a lot of its validity out the window in my book, because it shows that it's a hit piece, not a rational argument.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 18 December 2009, 02:26 AM
Logoboros's Avatar
Logoboros Logoboros is offline
 
Join Date: 27 April 2004
Location: Columbia, MO
Posts: 3,220
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lord_feldon View Post
Except for the parts where a noun was substituted for an adjective because it's an Approved Slur. That alone sucks a lot of its validity out the window in my book, because it shows that it's not a rational argument, it's a hit piece.
So a conservative would be right to dismiss an argument that refers to "freepers" or "anti-choice bigots" or "pseudo-Christian morons" out of hand because it demonstrates its authors' bias? If you use any of those terms, you deserve to be ignored and/or ridiculed for being a clueless ideological shill?

ETA: I should say, my own opinion would be to bracket such a post, certainly, but in some ways latching onto a usage like "the Democrat party" as reason enough to dismiss an argument sounds like someone just itching for any reason to dismiss (and in many cases demonize) an opposing position. Which does kind of validate DesertRat's point, I think. It's very close to saying "Their biased language proves intellectual vapidity. Our biased language is either playfulness or a statement of political resistance or not actually biased at all." This tactic is, of course, common to all sides of the political debate, but that doesn't justify it.

Last edited by Logoboros; 18 December 2009 at 02:31 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 18 December 2009, 02:28 AM
Amigone201's Avatar
Amigone201 Amigone201 is offline
 
Join Date: 11 March 2005
Location: Islip, NY
Posts: 6,040
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DesertRat View Post
As much as I like this site, I've been dismayed in recent months by the trend of close-minded intellectual arrogance I've seen growing among some of the membership. I have no issue with people saying they disagree with a viewpoint, and arguing emphatically why it is wrong. What I do have a major issue with is the sheer hubris it takes to suggest that people are not worthy of respect (in others, that you are BETTER than them) simply because they disagree with you.
I do know of some Snopesters (myself included) who feel intellectually superior to many people in the news, and who appear in Inboxer Rebellion. I don't know of any Snopesters who hold this view because those people disagree with us. I, for one, only hold it for people who hold positions that are demonstrably false and contrary to established science, history, or legal precedent.

For instance, I disagree with George Will, but I acknowledge that he's a pretty smart guy who does his research and simply draws different conclusions than I do from the same set of facts. But he knows what he's talking about, and he shows his work. He writes like a gentleman and a scholar, and while I disagree with him often, I don't think I'm mentally superior to him.

On the other hand, all conservatives are not George Will. Take Andy Schlafly. Andy is a blithering idiot who couldn't find a cogent argument if it fell on his head. He has no business teaching children, and is far, far too stupid (and possibly mentally unbalanced) to be as smug and arrogant as he is. He accuses people of things not only without evidence, but without any semblance of logical sense. He makes up statistics out of thin air, argues facts that have no basis, and "wins" arguments by banning people who clearly prove him wrong. He believes things and disbelieves others that nobody in his right mind should believe, and tries to argue in subject areas that are far, far over his head, usually coming out sounding like a stupid, petty little child.

It's the Andy Schlaflys of the world that we mock. Not only because it's fun, but because they deserve it. If George Will showed up here and challenged us, he'd give even the brightest Snopesters a run for our money. If Andy tried that, he'd give up and leave within a day because he can't prove us wrong with the stroke of a DELETE button, and is far too stupid to argue any other way.

Quote:
RCIAG, I apologize if it seems like I'm calling you out all by your lonesome; I'm not. Your post just happens to be the one that yanked on this hanging munchkin while I have time to respond. But to everyone here, conservative, liberal, whatever, who thinks your poop smells like ice cream and that anyone who holds alternative viewpoints is just, well, stupid--get over yourselves.
I assure you that, having had Haitian patties for dinner, that is not the case.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 18 December 2009, 02:33 AM
AnglRdr's Avatar
AnglRdr AnglRdr is offline
 
Join Date: 06 June 2002
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 50,681
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Logoboros View Post
So a conservative would be right to dismiss an argument that refers to "freepers" or "anti-choice bigots" or "pseudo-Christian morons" out of hand because it demonstrates its authors' bias?
Yes, of course, if one is arguing the freeper argument is the sum total of the conservative argument. Freepers aren't all representative of all conservatives; they are a subset of conservatives.

But I'm not sure that actually happens here.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ficus elected to office snopes Politics 5 06 May 2009 01:27 AM
E-mails support Katrina cases against State Farm, lawyers say snopes Hurricane Katrina 1 21 April 2007 11:12 AM


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.