But, you know, Neil will make one too many mistakes. Head Office will see what I already knew, and they go in there, they will march in there. They go, Right, yeah, David was right. You've pissed off him and you've pissed off him. You're not the manager you thought you were. Okay. So get out, we made the mistake. Then they drag him out by his hair and that's when the begging starts. They'll come to me and say, Ooh, David you were right all along, you were the right man for this job, you're the best man for this job. Will you come back? I'll be like, yeah sure how much money have you got? Because this is going to cost you, this is going to cost you.

Greed may be good, but endless repetition is not. I can haz different Dealbreaker ad, plz?

Elie, the only thing you are on the right side of is the doughnut box, so that you can stuff your face with your left hand and type with your right at the same time.

Yes. It is true. I, Michael Scott, am signing up with an online dating service. Thousands of people have done it, and I am going to do it. I need a username, and... I have a great one. "Little Kid Lover". That way people will know exactly where my priorities are at.

The law dork is a shitty blogger

What's a "dealbreaker"?

i like the blogger post

too bad some good kids were dragged thru the mud

NOTORPWNT i guess

Abigail: “If one of us becomes a law firm partner, can she lay off the other one?”
Britanny: “No problem. As soon as I make partner I’m cutting your lazy ass off. Once I get that corner office I’m putting you on doc review for 3 months, and telling you that you ‘need to improve’ and that you ‘might want to think about other options.’” Then, 90 days later, after you’ve had nothing but doc review, so no possible way to show improvement, I’m showing you what a real ‘severance’ looks like, sis. Believe me, it’ll hurt me more than it hurts you.”

OCEANS RISE

NATIONS FALL

LAT REMAINS

Use AdBlock Plus. I've never seen this infamous Dealbreaker ad.

JESUS CHRIST GET RID OF THE FUCKING DEALBREAKER GRAPES ADD - IT IS SO FUCKING ANNOYING. ELIE, I KNOW THE SIGHT OF FOOD GIVES YOU A HARD-ON, BUT GET RID OF THAT FUCKING AD AND GET SOMETHING ELSE TO BEAT-OFF TO.

Regards,
#12

OCEANS RISE

NATIONS FALL

"THE SHIP BE SINKING" REMAINS

I am about to Dealbreak your face, Mystal.

The Big Sleazy, Tommy Gufano, aka the Wop Genius

oh noes! i'm a little drunk :)

any questions you would like to know about nervous T-10 1L?

-nervous T-10 1L
sooon to be nervous 1L sa

it's brittany, you idiot, at least get your shtick right.

Be careful @15, I have it on good authority that a certain chimp named Chompers is gunna eat yo face.

17: Chompers doesn't scare me. i have twice the mental and physical strength of a chimp.

-nervous T-10 1L
soon to be nervous 1L sas

What's the deal with Althouse's blog?

Chompers gunna get you sucka.

20: now that i've got a 1L firm job i would bet there is at least a 40% chance i could beat Chompers in a doc review competition.

-nervous T-10 1L
soon to be nervous 1L sa

Chompers does not review docs.
Docs review Chompers.

wop genius

I have the utmost respect for all humans, regardless of what activities they engage in, as long it's consensual. I'm ambivalent about the whole gay-marriage issue because it doesn't affect me.

What I do want to know is, which nobody has yet answered, and, which I think is the bigger issue that needs to be addressed, is one that was proffered by the late, great, Sam Kinison: "How does a guy look at another guy's hairy ass, and find love?"

This is my only argument that homosexuality is a mental disease. However, a finding of this should not stand in the way of acknowledging the rights of homosexuals, in the same manner that we have acknowledged the rights of all other individuals diagnosed with mental illnesses toward the latter half of the 20th century. Just like schizophrenics are allowed to marry, homosexuals should also be afforded these equal rights.

Your thoughts?

I just heard from an '09 Shearman and Sterling SA that the program is being shortened from 12 to 9 weeks.

23-

But schizophrenics aren't demanding that millenia-old understandings of the institution of marriage be altered to accomodate their mental illness.

For me, the bigger mystery is why liberals pontificate about how traditional marriage is invidious "discrimination" but don't explore the broader implications of the principle which seems to underlie their arguments, namely, that *any* limitation on who can marry whom is by definition invidious (unconstitutional?) discrimination. In other words, the pro-gay marriage folks seem to implicitly be saying that if you have a sexual proclivity to [fill in the blank], you therefore have a right to compel the marriage laws to be changed accordingly. Under this logic, why can someone who claims that they have an immutable proclivity to want to marry 10 other individuals (or 10 chimpanzees) be denied? why is limiting marriage to 1 man + 1 woman and excluding all other combination evil discrimination but limiting it to 1 man + 1 woman OR 2 men OR 2 women but still excluding all other combinations okay?

Liberals need to stop blowing hot air and either (1) embrace the inescapable normative implication of their position, which is that any and every sexual union under the sun must be called a "marriage"; or (2) stop the obnoxious pontificating and admit that their position (i.e. hetro marriage + homo marriage but nothing else) is just as "discriminatory" as the status quo. And at least the status quo has some logical rationale behind it and boasts a long historical pedigree in our civilization. I have yet to hear a good reason for altering the marriage laws beyond sparing the "feelings" of a certain narrow subset of the population.

Right side of history? Nice Kalis reference.

26: Yawn... too drawn out. Just keep it simple for the simpletons. I will support gay marriage the moment liberals point out constitutional support for tonguing another man's anal orifice. The straight legal community demands answers to these questions.

Tell me more about Dave Gordon's brilliant plan to grow the NY office 3 years ago.

Errr.. I meant 25, not 26. Time to leave the office...

15 / 18:

Q - why are you such a douche.

30: because many of my classmates act the way i do on atl. i'm merely exaggerating the attributes of some of my toolish classmates. also it's kinda fun to see the reaction i get on atl. you would never know that i was a douche if you met me IRL.

-nervous T-10 1L
soon to be nervous 1L sa

But who I ask you who could have predicted a downturn in the economy?

PLEASE. Firing half your first years is NOT a big deal.

Elie, why the fatuously smug "on the right side of history" bit? The inevitability of a thing says nothing about its inherent rightness or wrongness, its benefits or drawbacks.

You're inevitably going to be fired for being such a lame, witless blogger. How about you get on the right side of history here, too, and let someone else take over?

Well done 25, well done.

25, you had me on the edge of your seat with your traditionalist inspired logic, but you lost it when you brought in the chimpanzee potential partner argument - chimps can't consent to anything but agreeing to bite off faces. The consent issue needs to be looked at further, though. If people suffer from "the gay", as a mental disorder, then is it really possible for them to consent to their relationship? Those opposed to gay marriages have been going at it from the wrong angle and will undoubtedly fail. Traditionalist arguments will always be overcome in time, whereas public policy arguments (i.e., the mentally sick are incapable of taking care of themselves so the state must dictate) are a much more powerful approach.

25, marriage hasn't always been defined as one man and one woman. Read the Bible. Men married many women. Marriage can take different forms, be it one man and multiple women or one woman and multiple men (in some, albeit few, agricultural societies). It therefore seems that different cultures can "define" marriage as a union comprising of multiple combinations of actors depending on what that society values.

A growing number of Americans value equality (and yes, sparing feelings. The Supreme Court has, after all, pointed out that stigma is harmful in equal rights cases.), and EQUALITY is the reason that gay Americans will eventually realize the right to marry.

The bestiality and incest arguments are fear mongering. We can talk about those when chimps start marching in the street for the right to marry humans.

Reading diatribes against gay marriage by posters like 25 is a lot like reading Burger's Bowers v. Hardwick opinion. Why should gays not have rights? Because gays have never had rights. See the Bible. It really boils down a tautology.

Of course, then we need to read through the tired slippery slope arguments. If we let the gays marry one another, next thing you'll know people will be marrying chimps and society will be doomed. The real issue here is that men licking the bumholes of other men grosses me out. Chimps marrying people grosses me out. The two are therefore qualitatively the same and should be stopped. Call it the ickiness factor.

There is no intellectual honesty in these arguments. Only visceral, emotional reactions of discomfort.

Luckily, Burger and Bowers were on the wrong side of history. So too will Prop 8.

Agree with 25 - if someone wants to be gay, that's okay, but society should not be forced to accept such folks and sanction their activities. And for those of you who think that the slippery slope argument is fear mongering, incestuous marriages are common in other parts of the world and it is NOT an exaggeration to think this might be what we are debating in 5 years.

Thanks for saying it's okay for me to be gay, 39. Your begrudging acceptance means a lot to me. Idiot.

-- 38

Anyone who watched the arguments knows that Ken Starr destroyed his competition. It really wasn't close. Is that Shannon guy/gal the best the other side could get? (I thought it was interesting that he (used to be a she) was referred to as a she on NPR.)

I m sitting here writing a brief about who are necessary parties that must be joined in a lawsuit because they will be affected by the outcome. Did all 18,000 same sex marrieds have to be joined in that case?

39 if you want to debate incest in 5 years go ahead, but that's not what we're talking about here.

You might as well argue that straights can't marry because that also leads to incestuous marriage.

Stupid jackass.

The anti-prop 8 parties are going to lose this fight. It was clear to all who watched.

Let the gnashing of teeth begin aknew.

38-

Seems that you're the one lacking intellectual honestly inasmuch as you didn't even respond to the points I raised, outside of a dismissive allusion to a slippery slope. In fact, it has nothing to do with a "slippery slope"; it's the immediate logical implication of the gay marriage argument. You still haven't explained why the argument in favor of gay marriage doesn't necessarily entail the scenarios I enumerated. "Equality" in the constitutional sense has never been understood to give people the right to translate their sexual proclivities into compelled revisions to marriage laws and I still haven't heard a good reason why this should be changed; and if it is to be changed, how can you limit this brand new "right" (which no one in this democracy ever consented to, by the way). just to one particular sexual proclivity (homosexuality)??

It's interesting: opponents of gay marriage are often painted as some sort of troglodytes, but it seems to me that the supporters are by and large those who lack intellectual integrity, relying completely on emotion, making specious inflammatory analogies to interracial marriage bans (which ridiculously suggests that every restriction on marriage is morally equivalent) and hysterically calling their opponents names. I suppose shouting down the other side might ultimately be an effective strategy but the pro-gay marriage argument increasingly looks to me like one giant self-righteous temper tantrum by liberals with bogus legal rationales and very tenuous public policy justifications.

--25

Would you people who want to ban gay marriage also support a ban on divorce? If you're all about protecting storied institutions and have religion so far crammed up your ass that you can't see that you are an ignorant asshole, at LEAST be consistent. DIVORCE, aka 50% of marriages that end up in divorce, is FAR more destructive of the institution of marriage than two men in love who want to formalize it.
fools.... should have let you hicks secede in the 1800s

46 -- Ah yes, because only southern "hicks" aren't behind gay marriage. Gay marriage is legal in 2 states. 2. The latest attempt to have the judiciary step in (in CA) was vetoed by 52% of CA's voters (CA, that great bastion of southern conservatism).

But there's more. We should be "consistent" by outlawing divorce. Which is to say, we can't be allowed to prevent one bad thing for society (gay marriage) unless we get rid of other bad things for society (divorce). Hmm.

45= solid

22-Great crashers quote

I support the right of gays to marry; but I also agree that it really is not a good look to attack anyone who disagrees with that position, regardless of the manner in which they argue their position, as "idiots," "morons," "jackasses," etc.

I know it feels like people are attacking your very being when they attack your right to live as everyone else does; but that doesn't mean that when an issue is controversial and up for public decision, the best way to win hearts and minds is to respond to calm (if wrong) arguments with insults. Not everuone who opposes gay marriag is Fred Phelps (even if they agree with him), so responding to all such people in kind only makes you look threatening and irrational.