I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

The more able and experienced a lawyer, the greater the chance that he or she will achieve a miscarriage of justice. I’m not sure where I first read that, but it is often the case.

Dork.

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

Found your blog on yahoo – thanks for the article but i still don’t get it.

The profiles tell you about the lawyer’s experience, education, and fees, and perhaps most importantly, the lawyer’s general philosophy of practicing law.

Lots of free content here. Thanks for sharing.

environment and your future. It is the focus you develop toward life itself.

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

Surely by now critical mass must have been reached to overthrow this dictator. Who is in control here?

Comment by Mitch — September 2, 2006 @ 1:58 am

The Pharmaceutical industry is booming! Volunteers are needed for medication testing! Bonus money if you sign up the whole family!

Liar or stupid, Which is it?

Doug G very badly needs to live in the shoes of those Northwest employees or the millions of others who are feeling the same squeeze and are systematically being renedered more helpless to do anything about it every with passing day. It’s easy for eletists like him to take that condescending tone when it’s someone else’s livelihood on the block.

This isn’t the America I grew up in.

“Northwest Airlines CEO Doug Steenland took a 23.5 percent salary cut in 2005 as Detroit’s largest carrier attempts to work its way out of bankruptcy.

Bankrupt airline’s filing with the SEC also reveals exec twice turned down bonuses of $675,000.”

At least 1 Northwest exec is doing their share.

Second I never said BECAUSE Clinton did it, Bush can do it. What I said was, all the Presidents do it. Sometimes out of necessity, sometimes because it’s a workaround for when congress doesnt do what they want. The fact is, it was done, and of course when doing it, the president, JUST LIKE EVERY PRESIDENT BEFORE HIM, is going to pick who he wants. If you don’t like it, vote for someone else the next time, just like I will do.

2 – Presidents tend to get elected because they rally enough voters to vote for them, but the average voter generally does not have an indepth understanding of how that person thinks — they only know what has been hyped in the campaigns (for and against — and on both counts the information is limited and usually distorted). Often people vote for the person they have heard the LEAST BAD things about.

Are you CERTAIN that ALL presidents have made recess apointments?

“So, it stands to reason, Clinton appointed people HE liked, Bush is going to do the same. So why complain about it.” How old are you? “Clinton did it so Bush is going to do it”. That is awfully childish. How about this: the purpose that recess appointments were allowed is so that there would not be a vacant position in a CRITICAL moment. The recess appointments were NOT created so that a president could just avoid the system intended to offer the EMPLOYER the best and most qualified person for the job (you like the employer more than the employee, right?… well, the PEOPLE are the employers of the government… though it is pretty hard for the people to “fire” their employees when the majority disagrees with said employees). Misusing a loophole in a law, against the intent of the system, is not ethical, it is wrong (and I don’t care WHO did it).

How about in real simple terms for you: wrong is wrong, no matter how many others before did that wrong. Period. Hitler had concentration camps. Does that make for a sustainable argument? Is it alright since it was done before? Of course not.

One more time (all together now) WRONG IS WRONG.

“I would try to make sure my employer wasnt going to go out of business because I was being paid too much. ” Spare us. You are full of it, and you know it. What about the executives and shareholders – how much are THEY willing to concede to keep the company from going under? It is far easier and less economically devestating to families to cut a $1 mil a year salary in half than to make up that same amount from numerous employees scraping by on $40k a year with a family of 5. If the admin and executives salaries are reduced to the level of the worker on the floor, then I’ll concede that the workers ought to consider giving in some if it is still necessary to save the company. But while a company has people on payroll for millions a year and really who do little to make the company actually operate, I have no symapathy for any but the workers, who are those you expect to bear the burdon and make the sacrafices. You and your corporate loving kind are WHY America today looks almost nothing like tha America our forefathers envisioned (and it IS a beautiful vision) — our forefathers DESPISED corporations. They DESPISED them.