DEZLPWR

LMFAO!!!

WASHINGTON 2003/2004
ATTORNEY SEASON AND BAG LIMITS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any person with a valid Washington State hunting license may harvest attorneys.
Taking of attorneys with traps or deadfalls is permitted. The use of currency as bait is prohibited.
Killing of attorneys with a vehicle is prohibited. If accidentally struck, remove dead attorney to roadside and proceed to nearest car wash.
It is unlawful to chase, herd, or harvest attorneys from a snow machine, helicopter, or aircraft.
It shall be unlawful to shout "whiplash," "ambulance," or "free Perrier" for the purpose of trapping attorneys.
It shall be unlawful to hunt attorneys within 100 yards of BMW dealerships.
It shall be unlawful to use cocaine, young boys, $100 bills, prostitutes, or vehicle accidents to attract attorneys.
It shall be unlawful to hunt attorneys within 200 yards of courtrooms, law libraries, whorehouses, health spas, gay bars, ambulances, or hospitals.
If an attorney is elected to government office, it shall be a felony to hunt, trap, or possess it.
Stuffed or mounted attorneys must have a state health department inspection for AIDS, rabies, and vermin.
It shall be illegal for a hunter to disguise himself as a reporter, drug dealer, pimp, female legal clerk, sheep, accident victim, bookie, or tax accountant for the purpose of hunting attorneys.

BAG LIMITS

Yellow Bellied Sidewinder 2
Two-faced Tort Feasor 1
Back-stabbing Divorce Litigator 4
Big-mouthed Pub Gut 2
Honest Attorney EXTINCT
Cut-throat 2
Back-stabbing Whiner 2
Brown-nosed Judge Kisser 2
Silver-tongued Drug Defender $100 BOUNTY
Hairy-assed Civil Libertarian 7

DEZLPWR

(.)(.)

[]

Mexstan

I like it!! Lawyers/attorneys are wrecking the USA so I agree, get rid of as many as you can.

joel

You know, I was thinking about your statement, Mexstan and really it's not the attorneys - they're just the enablers. It's the idiots who don't want to own up to the fact that they're an idiot. Example - the idiot lady who went to the McD's drive through, bought coffee (I'm sure she would have and complained heartily if it was cold coffee!), put it between her legs then drove off, over a speed bump and obviously a speed too fast for the conditions and burned her legs with spilled coffee. So she sues McD for the burns because the coffee was too hot. The only person ruining the system here is this now greedy idiot. Granted, the lawyer who took her case (and probably helped prod her into filing it) isn't entitled to wear any shade of white, but the bottom line is that an individual ultimately has to consent to sueing someone for crap like this, not the attorney.

Disclaimer: I'm not an attorney, though I considered going to Law School a while back. Figured I'd starve to death, though, because when this fat lady with the burned legs came in and told me her story and that she wanted to sue, by the time I stopped laughing at her, she'd have left and I wouldn't have a client!

Mexstan

joel, you have a valid point but there are still those attorneys that seem to go out of their self serving way to get useful idiots to sue for what a 'normal' person would consider a stupid reason. The courts are overflowing with these cases. Just check the internet. One example comes to mind right now. Maybe you remember the news story last week of the kid who loaned his asthma attack girlfriend his inhaler, (same prescription) and is now up for some sort of drug charges. Or the librarian who was fired for wearing a cross to to work. Or those idiots who are twisting your first amendment to make it say that religion and government should not be mixed. If you actually read the amendment it says nothing about that. (wonder how many Americans know the actual wording of the various amandments?) What do they think the US was founded on? Or how about the woman that got abortion on demand started in the US? She has since come out and said that she was coerced into saying what she did and now wants to get the case heard again or overturned, but can't because the lawers for the folks who love murdering babies have so far managed to stop her. Better stop now before I really get riled up.

Redleg

What about the guy who tried to sue Budwieser for all the ugly women he went home with?

dodgeman01

[quote author=Redleg link=board=10;threadid=21369;start=0#msg200921 date=1067017561]
What about the guy who tried to sue Budwieser for all the ugly women he went home with?
[/quote]
HEY NOW I HAVE RIGHTS TOO!!! :






DM01

Mexstan

[quote author=dodgeman01 link=board=10;threadid=21369;start=0#msg200923 date=1067017673]
[quote author=Redleg link=board=10;threadid=21369;start=0#msg200921 date=1067017561]
What about the guy who tried to sue Budwieser for all the ugly women he went home with?
[/quote]
HEY NOW I HAVE RIGHTS TOO!!! :


Not necessarily, that depends on which lawyer you get .... and how much money you have.





[/quote]

joel

I'll have to disagree on your perspective on religion and government not being mixed. The constitution doesn't say those exact words: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...," but it is one of the basic tenants of the founding fathers who were here because of religious persecution (i.e. you don't believe what the king does, you're a criminal). So, if we're to mix government and religion here... what religion do we mix? Catholocism? Protestant? Generic Christian? Jewish? Muslem? There's the rub and why our government must stay out of religion.

Now, having said that, yes, it does go to extremes. A librarian fired for wearing a cross? That would, to me, be a direct violation of the first amendment ("prohibiting the free exercise thereof&quot. The whole 10 Commandments thing in Alabama. I can see both sides of that argument, but it does seem to be blown way out of proportion and I'm not sure exactly where that one should go and I'm sure we could debate both sides of that one for quite some time!

Roe vs. Wade? Do we really want to go there? While I don't agree with abortion, I do believe in the individual choice, so I think we'll have to disagree on that one. I'd not heard the original petitioner had said she was coerced - do you have any articles on that? I'd like to read them.

The beauty of our constitutional system is also its biggest flaw: different people interpret things differently. It gives everyone access to the courts to redress wrongs (or percieved wrongs), so we have to take the good with the bad. And some lawyers are no better than the scam artists sending out emails about the millions in Nigeria. I'd rather put up with this than have someone dictate to me what I can or can't sue for or, in the extreme, what church I have to attend; or that I can't attend specific churches. Or base laws on "their" religion if it's not mine. Or decide what music I can listen to. Again, we could go on and on and on and we'd probably find some common ground and some pretty serious disagreements.

Mexstan

Sure, there are two sides to this story but I am not willing to debate them on this forum. Too much chance of some hotheads butting in with opinions and no facts to back them up. Then the mods have to step in and shut this down.
Will have to do some research on the Roe vs. Wade thing but I read a few news stories (not in the regular media) that made mention of this. Think it was a couple of months ago that I read about it. If I get time will check it out. Can't remember for sure where I saw the articles but it may have been in World Net Daily. Try their archeives at worldnetdaily.com
BTW, if government cannot mix with religion, why does it say on all your coins "In God we trust"? And I am not trying to start a fight here. Just an honest question. Maybe don't answer that because we are way off topic.

spots

Last road trip was listening to the radio and heard an ad for a law office. They were targeting people who were permanently disabled. Even in the radio ad they said "if you have had a minor accident get medical help, get well and get on with your life. If you have been permanently injured we can help." My wife and I stared back at each other with our mouths dropped open. Wow an almost ethical attorney....

PumpDaddy

Hey guys, I have to let you know that there are STILL some honest attorneys. One of the ones that we use for our business legal crap is on of, if not the most I've ever dealt with, and the best part of the deal is that WE have to remind HIM to send the bill for his work. The guy is down to earth, NO BS, and shoots from the hip. Anybody out there in need of good one for thier business, drop me an PM. He's located here in Birmingham, but does work all over the country. I found out later he was one of the best in the country at what he does.

Nevada

[quote author=PumpDaddy link=board=10;threadid=21369;start=0#msg201113 date=1067043851]
Hey guys, I have to let you know that there are STILL some honest attorneys. One of the ones that we use for our business legal crap is on of, if not the most I've ever dealt with, and the best part of the deal is that WE have to remind HIM to send the bill for his work. The guy is down to earth, NO BS, and shoots from the hip. Anybody out there in need of good one for thier business, drop me an PM. He's located here in Birmingham, but does work all over the country. I found out later he was one of the best in the country at what he does.
[/quote]

Amen PumpDaddy, 99% of the lawyers out there are giving the rest a bad name.

DPG

Nevada:

It was so cold here the other day, I actually saw a lawyer with his hands in his OWN pockets.