Azalin

there is no such thing as a 'court of public opinion defense attorney'. no law degrees are offered for that, and no instructional courses are available for it. 'court of public opinion' is a cliche. it is not part of the legal system. the people involved in representation in the court of public opinion are known as spokespeople, press agents, publicists, and spin doctors. not attorneys.

if you killed your wife, you'd only need a defense attorney if you were charged with her murder. if however you were president of your neighborhood home owner's association, and you heard that some of the members were questioning your possible involvement in missing dues from the association's fund, you could either wait and be charged with the crime and hire a defense attorney to represent you, or you could hire an investigative attorney in advance of any potential charges in order to clear your name before any charges were actually levelled at you. is there any chance that you can see a difference between the two scenarios?

good advice, but 1,589 posts too late.

they're saying that Christie hasn't been charged with anything, and therefore isn't in need of a defense attorney, the role of which is to argue on behalf of a defendant in a criminal or civil trial. this person is an attorney hired to investigate the closing of the bridge lane for purposes of determining who was ultimately directly responsible. and just to preempt accusations of partisanship, the attorney is a democrat.

holy crap.....this is going to be an entertaining read.

I drove through a serious downpour today between Austin and Smithville. we may have a concensus forming here........

remember, in Amsterdam the prostitutes advertise by standing in their front windows. he obviously returning from being with prostitutes.

insightful, informed, and well delivered.

no, it's bigger than that. Einstein. the general theory. they found the graviton.

I mentioned that in my post #119: 'the hospital has to be augmenting their existing heating system by adding the resultant heat radiation from their biomedical incinerator.'

an inept paranoid socialist retread who needs the constant support and approval of fame-leeching devotees.

to his credit, he does so better than anyone else.

I only said it once before, and it doesn't seem that you get the point. first, neither I or anyone else (as far as I can tell) has any issue with the incineration of biomedical waste, whether fetus or not. the point of contention is in using such things as a form of heating, since they're going to be burned anyway. many people find that to be ghoulish and/or repugnant, based on their own personal morals, while others see no trouble with the practice. that's an honest difference in personal beliefs. all I am trying to say is that it's a really stupid argument to make to say 'well, we may as well heat the building with all this biomedical waste'. in a time where many people on both the right AND the left believe energy conservation to be a good thing, to embrace the concept of actually using biomedical waste for purposes of heating is retarded. it takes a much more intense flame, at a much higher heat to destroy biomedical waste than it goes to ignite natural gas, burn heating oil, etc. it's simple practicality, and it makes the concept of using such things as fuel completely illogical.

and the relevance to this discussion is.................?

I'll mention this again since it appears that my first mention of this got lost in all the bickering: human tissue, fetus or no, is terrible fuel for heating anything. it takes a hell of a lot more energy to burn tissue than can be released by burning it. all moral questions aside, it seems ridiculous to even entertain the concept of burning animal tissue as a source of heat energy. it would be like tossing a slab of raw meat into the fireplace on a chilly night, expecting to gain the same warmth as you would had you instead used wood. the hospital has to be augmenting their existing heating system by adding the resultant heat radiation from their biomedical incinerator. either that, or they're dessicating/mummifying the tissue first. mummies would burn pretty easily.

rest in peace. thoughts and prayers for his family during this time of sadness.

has it even occurred to anyone that it requires more energy to burn human tissue that it can produce as heat energy as it's being incinerated? not only is it ghoulish, it's not even practical. now, if you bury it all deep underground, you might get some petroleum out of it in a few million years.

you may not be a psychologist, but at least you're making an effort to help me see your side, and I appreciate that. you've given me something to think about. . to be honest, I'll probably never be able to completely separate sex from rape as a motivator in my mind, but both you and Greg both make a good case. I'm not trying to argue so much as I'm trying to understand.

to me, the thought of burning any kind of human tissue, fetus or not, for the purpose of heating a building is ghoulish. perhaps I'm old-fashioned and overly sensitive, but it just seems wrong to me.

that's okay.....I'll probably see him eventually where I'm headed.

I understand the forcing physical domination part just fine, and it most certainly does have everything to do with exerting power and dominating someone. no, I do not believe that someone with a normal psychological profile could do something like that. why then does bullying exist without the need for the domination to manifest in the form of a sexual assault? why is sex the chosen means to dominate when there are so many other means for doing so?

you miss the point entirely. soylent green is people.

here is where capitalism meets abortion? really? that is by far the most profoundly retarded thing I have ever heard anyone say, ever. but you are certainly entitled to your opinion, of course.

you would use them as fuel to heat the building? you see nothing wrong with that?