Vote!!!

[Archive]

Posted By: J Levine

No simple solutions...Jim...go ahead and outlaw abortions. Please do not come complaining afterward about all the children being born and your taxes going up to support them. Please do not complain when the health care costs double and triple again when these children need medical care and cannot afford it. Please do not complain when they vote democrat because the republican base does not support them. Making abortion illegal is a two edged sword.

Personally...I am pro-choice and anti-abortion. I feel that every woman should have the right to choose. I however feel bad every time an abortion is performed because it means mistakes were made and the difficult decisions that brought them to that point must have been agonizing. I also feel that adoption is the way to go. My best friend in the world was adopted and he did not have the best childhood but at least he had a childhood.

Joshua

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

Jim "blah blah" Bloomenthal...blah blah blah blah blah

Joshua--I understand the other issues involved--and the ramifications--just believe that the killing of unborn children trumps all.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

Touche, Jim. You got me there. But at least spell my name correctly.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

Shall I take your silence to mean you prefer not to consider or have no to response to nuance in consideration of the issue?
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

See answer to Joshua--not a nuanced issue in my view-the voluntary killing of a defenseless child is wrong.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Ok, we've got nuance AND change in this thread -- which means it has probably jumped the shark.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

It's also got a considerable amount of cowbell.



Don't ever forget that.

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard Simon

It always warms the cockles of my heart to hear the pro life people argue their position. They worry about the unborn right up until the moment of birth. After that they could care less. And if their taxes might have to be raised in order to take care of a new influx of babies of possibly unwed, possibly lower income children,,, oh wow!! they will howl to the moon about how unjust it is that they are working so hard and an extra $20 a paycheck is coming out of their income to take care of these kids
==

I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

Unknown author

--

We made a promise. We swore we'd always remember.

No retreat baby, no surrender.

The Boss

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Dan, that last cowbell link did not work; please rectify immediately.

By the way, it really is strange why that Walken cowbell skit resonates so much after all these years; it really is pure genius--I'm just not sure why.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim VB

From Jim C.:



"(and noone can dispute that it is a child) "



Says who? The scientific and legal community disagree with you. Viability does not start at conception. From a scientific standpoint, the early term fetus is a parasite. You're letting your religious beliefs trump everything. Nothing wrong with that, but don't force it on others who feel differently.



If you want to believe the Earth is 6500 years old, fine. Don't try to force us to believe it.



If you want to believe in creation not evolution, fine. Don't try to teach it in the public schools.



If you believe the human race and animal kingdom survived because Noah put his family and 2 of everything else in a big boat, fine. But don't try to sell it to us as "fact."



You would be highly offended, and rightly so, if someone characterized you as a "thief" and your profession as "robbery" because some of you have made money, while others were losing it.



You call it "murder" for shock effect, but it isn't. If it was, the courts in the country would be even busier. It is certainly something we, as a country, should not be proud of. But the cure is education, not legislation. We should be fighting to teach children age appropriate sex education along with effective contraception, while their families and churches teach them morality.



Besides, voting for national candidates, to lead us into the future, purely on this one issue, is a recipe for continued disaster. I go to church every Sunday, Jim. I listen to our Pastor carefully. He's a very religious man. He couldn't "lead" any of us anywhere. Theology and politics should NEVER mix. They are different skill sets.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

"Theology and politics should NEVER mix. They are different skill sets."

Then how do you explain the fact that The Messiah is our next President? (Sorry, absolutely could not resist )

[Archive]

Posted By: Kenneth A. Cohen

Whether abortion is murder or not is in part a semantic argument, isn't it? The fact that it is not illegal does not necessarily constitute a conclusive argument. The Killing Fields weren't "illegal" in Cambodia, does that mean that murder did not take place?

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim VB

"Then how do you explain the fact that The Messiah is our next President?"


1) This "Messiah" is VERY good at campaign fundraising!

2) After 8 years of incompetence, his rhetoric resonates in the public ear.

3) His opponent, who was starting with a huge hole to dig out of, ran the worst campaign since,... well, only since Kerry.

4) Sarah Palin.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Am I glad I was out all day, celebrating Ted Z.'s 70th birthday. I could have instead been home to read this thread.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

Jim VB,

I disagree with most of what you say. Most of the things you attribute to me I never said or thought.

1)First who says I am forcing my beliefs on anyone. Its a legal decision--there are 4 votes on the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v Wade--

2)Secondly I am not letting my religious beliefs trump anything--who said I believe the earth is 6500 years old?

3)Just because you say it is not murder does not mean you are right. I think it is--I would say that the majority of the country agrees with that. They also agree that abortions should be significantly limited. I am sure that if there was an up or down vote on whether abortions should be outlawed except for rape or incest it would pass.

4) I also never suggested I was or anyone should be a one issue voter. I have mentioned several times issues that are important to me. I take them all into consideration.

Lastly, why do I really think I'm right? Because Richard Simon thinks differently--that guy is never right.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

Barry,

So that explains why Ted has not been on this thread. I thought heas just in mourning from the Redistributor winning and carrying his home state.

[Archive]

Posted By: David Atkatz

<<First who says I am forcing my beliefs on anyone. Its a legal decision--there are 4 votes on the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v Wade-->>

That's one of the best parts parts of an Obama Presidency; four votes is all you're gonna get for a long, long, time.

[Archive]

Posted By: Patrick McHugh

It really does not matter that Obama won. Everyone and I mean everyones taxes will be raised. The bailout of the corperate america will be paid for by the usa citizens. There are many more bailouts on the way think auto. insurance etc. We will all have to pay for this. It is sad that all of these corporations with educated people put all there eggs in one basket mortgage backed securities and have led this great nation to the brink of bankruptcy. Just goes to show when you follow the lead sheep you all go off the cliff.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Jim- Ted and his wife made a lovely luncheon at the Washington Crossing Inn, in I believe Lambertville. He told me he does not want to participate on this thread. I'm sure he's a little bummed out.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Barry, that Ted is a little bummed out I am sure is a very small part of why he does not want to participate in this thread....

[Archive]

Posted By: Ken McMillan

This thread doesn't need more COWBELL, it needs CAMELTOE !!!!!

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

He was putting this party together for 40 people. He had other priorities, no doubt.

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard Simon

Thanks Jim, an ultra conservative like you saying I am never right on political matters is the best compliment I could get on this board. Thanks, again !! I truly appreciate, what I consider a great compliment.
I find it amusing that you almost never answer my questions directly.


==

I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

Unknown author

--

We made a promise. We swore we'd always remember.

No retreat baby, no surrender.

The Boss

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim VB

<<"I disagree with most of what you say. Most of the things you attribute to me I never said or thought.">>



I apologize. I really didn't mean to infer that all of those views were yours. Many of them belong to the right wing fringe and I lumped you in.









<"1)First who says I am forcing my beliefs on anyone. Its a legal decision--there are 4 votes on the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v Wade--">>



Correct. It is a legal decision. And right now, abortion is legal so calling it "murder" is just an attempt at sensationalism. Sort of like calling Democrats "socialists!" Overturning Roe v. Wade is more difficult than just counting votes. The Court has no standard mechanism to routinely go back and review past decisions. Some one will have to make a case that abortion infringes upon their rights. That case will have to wind through the court system and end up in the Supreme Court. Not an easy challenge.









<"2)Secondly I am not letting my religious beliefs trump anything--who said I believe the earth is 6500 years old?">>



See apology above. I wrongly imputed Sarah Palin's views on you. I am sorry.











<"3)Just because you say it is not murder does not mean you are right. I think it is--I would say that the majority of the country agrees with that. They also agree that abortions should be significantly limited. I am sure that if there was an up or down vote on whether abortions should be outlawed except for rape or incest it would pass.">>



I don't think the majority agrees with you at all. Even in South Dakota which is a very conservative state, that vote lost again this election. (I also think this is one of those issues that "the majority" shouldn't matter. Some issues are either right or wrong, regardless of majority opinion. Slavery used to be a majority opinion. That didn't make it right. The majority used to be opposed to women voting. That was wrong. Restrictions of legal rights of gays is a similar matter.)



I have no problem banning all abortions past the point of human viability, but prior to that, it should be up to the mother. (By the way, I'm a Catholic. Twenty years ago, my wife had a miscarriage at 4 months. The church refused to Baptize and refused to bury our baby. They didn't consider it a baby. The position of my church is inconsistent.)













<"4) I also never suggested I was or anyone should be a one issue voter. I have mentioned several times issues that are important to me. I take them all into consideration.">>



Again, I apologize for inferring you were. But many people on your side of the argument are. That would be OK on some issues. This one seems like the wrong one to me.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

Barry,

I have been there before--great place--great town

Good for Ted--I am very happy for him.

I am sure it was a nice day for you as well.

Jim

[Archive]

Posted By: Tom Boblitt

Don't try to get all reasonable on us...........
JK

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

Jim VB,

Thoughtful responses and cogent arguments.

I respect your point of view on all matters including this.

Enjoy the rest of your weekend.

Jim

[Archive]

Posted By: PC

I'll gladly pay 49% of my income in taxes, as opposed to 48%, if it gets Ron Howard to shut his mouth.

There isn't enough cowbell in the world to placate that guy.

And I've been picking up lower grade 52 Topps HOFers for less than 30 bucks. Maybe that's a sign of a recession, but I thought they would be free after the election. But alas, like my mortgage, I still have to pay for them.

[Archive]

Posted By: jdrum

That Obama magic is working already! Tonight I paid 2.019 for gas! A chicken in every pot and $2 gas in every tank!

[Archive]

Posted By: John

"Not when the tax increase isn't going to change his Upper East Side life style one iota."

Wow a touch sour grapes David??

"Pissing and moaning about being taxed a few thousand extra dollars, when you spend more than that on one baseball card, is just plain selfishness."

David you ever buy a card? Couldnt you have donated that cash to charity or hungry people???

Maybe your purchase was not thousands but only a few hundred, either way that makes Jeff and you both selfish huh?

And you pointing it out is sort of like a call girl teasing a whore both get paid for sex just one gets more than the other...

So in the future why not take every single extra cent you have and give it to charity, dont drive anymore walk instead, volunteer every waking free hour of the day to the less fortunate too while youre at it.

However until you're doing that then spare us the soapbox for the good man crap, or insinuate that your better than anyone else here.
We all do selfish things including you so climb down from the cross before you hurt yourself professor.

I see no harm in any one looking out for his or her best interests, and all of us have selfish motives when it comes to us and our families. It's just most of us know to keep our mouths shut about pointing them out...people in glass houses David ring a bell?

Unless you do nothing selfish on the other end of that keyboard, how about sitting on your hands next time before you type something.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jerry Hrechka

The only comment I want to make is:



NATIONAL DEBT:



In 2000 - 6 Trillion Dollars



In 2008 - 10 Trillion Dollars



A 66% increase.



That is Dubya's legacy.

Here is my Presidential voting record:

1972 - Richard Nixon

1976 - Jimmy Carter

1980 - John Anderson

1984 - Ronald Reagen

1988 - George Bush

1992 - Ross Perot

1996 - Bill Clinton

2000 - Harry Browne

2004 - John Kerry

2008 - Barack Obama

If, I don't approve of the major party candidates, I will cast a protest vote for a third party candidate. But I will always vote.

[Archive]

Posted By: David Atkatz

" 'Not when the tax increase isn't going to change his Upper East Side life style one iota.'

Wow a touch sour grapes David??"

Actually, John, no.

I live on the Upper West Side. So I'm doing just fine, thanks.

And, most importantly, I'm not whining about paying a few bucks more to help others.

Yeah. Taxes are gonna go up under Obama.

Because the only way this country is going to get back on its feet is if everyone that can afford to pay for it does so.

Your guy gave you an eight year free ride. A time in which, for example, AIG executives could get rich ripping off the insurance industry, or lawyers could get rich defending them when they where caught.

Hopefully. a lot of that will end soon.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jerry Hrechka

I agree with David A. - Forget about tax decreases, all of us need to make some sacrifices - I'm all for increasing taxes, I'm very willing to pay several thousand dollars more , in taxes per year, to make us a creditor nation once more.

Hell I'll just buy a few less cards each year, thereby proving I'm willing to reduce demand & help other collectors buy the cards they want for less.

[Archive]

Posted By: John

"Your guy gave you an eight year free ride"

Pretty sure the last 8 years were not free for me David, paid plenty of taxes.

The bulk of the tax money doesn't go to help poor pitiful folks and you're living in a dream world if you think it does. It goes to folks who abuse the system or silly give away programs to lazy people, and all sorts of under the table government backroom deals.

That few extra grand will go to the above, not helpless Americans who need it or our economy.Or it will get stuck into a failed SS system that wont even be around when the bulk of us retire.

It has always been this way and always will be this way.

We need to start empowering Americans not crippling them with free money and stupid programs.

I for one am getting tired of giving people that dont work or dont want to work free rides; I was dead broke 4 years ago with a struggling business. Now that I'm doing very well I need to help out...huh funny nobody tossed me any free money.

Americans need to learn that short of few civil freedoms you are entitled to nothing, you want something get a job and work for it.


But that seems to be a lost lesson today.

[Archive]

Posted By: John

The thing that makes this whole thread laughable..

Is any of the many posters who have so gallantly offered up extra tax dollars for the good of man or the nations credit. All of this offered up or pioneered on a forum which is dedicated to nothing more than luxury comforts in the form of baseball card collectibles?

I wonder how many of these poor folks you seem so willing to help would view this forum and be disgusted or insulted on the amount of money we all spend on these things in our pick up threads, yet in the next breath many of you soapbox about your willingness to give back and your deep concerns for the global community..LOL

I doubt very seriously any person or global economist would say well that David guy means well and seems to be a good guy, but that Lichtman guy sure seems like a selfish SOB.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

The degree of naivete of those on the left is startling.

The views of several seem to be that once we raise taxes on the most productive people in society everything will be all right. This is despite the fact that they already account for a record percentage of taxes paid and the US has one of the most progressive taxation regimes in the world.

Just watch as companies move more and more manufacturing out of the US because of the high costs of union labor. Its a global economy and with unions determined to increase membership and Obama ready to try to make it easy for them watch how quickly those remaining union jobs leave the country. Should the left try to limit this, companies will simply reincorporate outside the U.S.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

David is all about consitutitonal rights being enforced and the government not unfairly persecuting citizens through unreasonable searches and seizures or illegal wiretaps -- except when enforcing those rights puts money into the pockets of people he's jealous of. And paying 50% of my taxes to a government headed by a guy that I didn't vote for once over the past eight years sure felt like a free ride.

David, if only you could get a job being a miserable, hateful, angry, jealous, expletive-spewing, email-stalking, psychologically imbalanced maniac instead of an Assistant Professor who terrorizes his teenage students you might actually be successful -- and it wouldn't even feel like work!

[Archive]

Posted By: David Atkatz

Well, my good friend Jeff purports to know what "I'm about," and then goes off on his usual name-calling rant.

So, as I've always believed that "turnabout is fair play," I'll attempt to show what Jeff's all about. But I needn't resort to name-calling--all I've got to do is go to Jeff's own website.

Every quote that follows has been taken verbatim from Jeff's site (the one he uses to present himself to the world or, at least to prospective clients), or from links Jeff himself provided there.

Which clients does Jeff choose to brag about?

"His clients include those charged with RICO violations, narcotics offenses, money laundering, securities fraud, health care fraud, tax evasion and murder and murder conspiracy."

...Recent clients include Thomas Rachko, a retired New York Police detective accused of robbing drug dealers; Jacob Orgad, described by the government as the "largest MDMA (ecstasy) trafficker" ever arrested in the United States; AIG executives named in the New York Attorney General's probe of the insurance industry; and John A. Gotti, the son of the infamous mob boss. The Gotti trial ended with the dismissal of three murder conspiracy charges, an acquittal on a $25 million securities fraud charge and a deadlocked jury on every remaining count.

Does Jeff believe he is defending the innocent, the powerless and persecuted, the unfairly accused? (And, more to the point, is he even interested in defending those just mentioned?)

" ...Goody-twoshoes types don't interest him: 'I'd say the line of innocent defendants out my door is very short.' "

How does our Jeff describe himself?

"I'm an angry guy... Hey, I don't like lawyers, either. Who does? They're argumentative, and they think they know more than everyone else."

What does Jeff consider to be his most important achievements?

People v. Patterson, 06 CR 80 (S.D.N.Y. 2008):
In a multi-defendant, large-scale federal marijuana conspiracy case, motion to preclude introduction of six firearms, drug paraphernalia, 16,000 bullets and client's fingerprint found on box of ammunition--seized from home client was living in--was granted due to government's delay in providing discovery.

United States v. Heath, 95 CR 6064 (W.D.N.Y. 2007):
Defendant received a 48 month non-sentencing guidelines prison sentence following conviction for possession with intent to distribute cocaine. Mr. Heath was described by President Bush as an "international drug kingpin" was once on the FBI's 10 Most Wanted list while fighting a ten year extradition battle from his native St. Kitts with the United States. Sentence was remarkable in that it was well below the range called for in his plea agreement...

United States v. Dono, 03 CR 970, (E.D.N.Y. 2005):
Defendant charged with robbing and burglarizing multiple banks in New York received a downward departure from a sentencing range of 57-71 months in prison to 30 months...

United States v. Russo, 00 CR 1289 (E.D.N.Y. 2004):
Defendant charged with possession with intent to distribute heroin received downward departure from 78-97 months to a non-custodial sentence of supervised release...

United States v. Fazio, 00 CR 1183 (S.D.N.Y. 2003):
Defendant convicted of laundering $2.5 million of proceeds of illegal gambling operation received downward departure at sentencing to 5 years probation on grounds that he suffered significantly reduced mental capacity during the commission of the crime due to a pathological gambling disorder.

United States v. Lev, 00 CR 196 (E.D.N.Y. 2001):
Federal RICO charges (along with securities fraud and money laundering charges) dismissed by government...

United States v. Iodice, 95 CR 124 (S.D.N.Y. 1996):
Federal RICO charges (along with securities fraud and mail fraud charges) dismissed by government...

United States v. Oliva, 00 CR 53 (E.D.N.Y. 2001):
Defendant with extensive criminal history convicted of extortion with the use of a firearm, received downward departure to 20 months imprisonment...

(And the list goes on... )

And what, in Jeff's own estimation is his piece de la resistance? Why it was freeing his good buddy, John Gotti, Jr.

United States v. Gotti, 04 CR 690 (S.D.N.Y. 2005):
After a nearly two month trial, John Gotti, Jr.'s trial ended with the dismissal of three murder conspiracy charges, an acquittal on a $25 million securities fraud charge and a deadlocked jury on every remaining count. Just days after this stunning verdict, Mr. Lichtman secured Mr. Gotti's release on bail.

Why would Jeff work so hard to free him? A belief in his innocence, perhaps?
"It's not like I think Gotti is this innocent little guy; I'm not a fool."

Then what could it be? Perhaps a chance to "make his bones," thus ensuring a future lucrative career?

"I was working like three people because I didn't want to embarrass myself. Where else would I get an opportunity on a stage like this?"

Now I see why Jeff was so concerned about Obama's racist spiritual adviser. As Jeff himself has experienced in an unsuccessful apartment purchase, "A man is known by the company he keeps."

A job well-done. Kudos to our own Jeffrey "keep 'em on the street" Lichtman.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Is all this really appropriate? How about a break guys?

[Archive]

Posted By: David Atkatz

Fine with me, Barry.

But I'm not the guy who posted selected anonymous quotes submitted by seventeen-year-olds to rateyourprofessor.com, and then keeps alluding to them in every subsequent post.

And remember, what appears above are not quotes from disgruntled, imprisoned former clients of Jeff's. It's how Jeff himself wants to be seen. A selection--made by Jeff himself--of his major accomplishments and attributes. The things of which (besides his family, of course) he is the most proud.

[Archive]

Posted By: GeorgeC

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

David, you really are ill. I'm a criminal defense attorney; last time I checked our constitution guarantees a defense to anyone charged with a crime. Most liberals understand that. In fact, most of my clients are liberals like yourself and they surely understand that. And I should state the obvious that when a government is allowed to run unchecked on its citizens that is not good for anyone, liberal or conservative. By putting the government to its proof, with the most zealous defense possible, within the bounds of law and ethics, is something I am incredibly proud of. And I will never apologize for that. I don't root for crime, I'm not part of any gang: I simply enforce the constitutional rights of my clients. If criminal attorneys were in the tank for the government or didn't do their best I suppose we'd be living in Iran or Saudi Arabia and not America.

Oh and by the way, you cited some of my cases that have generated publicity; many of those cases necessarily involve wealthy or infamous defendants. There are plenty more instances of pro-bono representation or situations in which innocent people were unfairly accused and even imprisoned until I managed to get their cases dismissed. I've even represented professors (granted full professors and not Assistants to the Professor or Assistant Professors, whatever you are). And I think you'll find that my clients and former clients speak very highly of me, even the ones that are convicted -- becuase I work like crazy to help them and they know it. They will universally tell you that I show great compassion to them. You should try that sometime; especially with young, impressionable students who look to you for guidance -- instead of abusing them and breaking their spirit.

In sum, to claim you are a great liberal but to decry someone who simply works ethically and zealously within the criminal justice system just shows how twisted your mind really is.

[Archive]

Posted By: David Atkatz

Evidently, though, Jeff, you don't feel that any of that wonderful work you just mentioned is important enough to expose on your site. Obviously those you've just mentioned are not the kind of high-paying clientele you're trying to attract. None of those innocent "goody two shoes" for you.

They can't pay, and they won't make you famous.

Keep up the name-calling, Jeff. It suits you.

[Archive]

Posted By: Al C.risafulli

It's so great that we're able to have a civil discussion about politics on this forum without degenerating into personal insults.

-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Actually David, I make mention on the site of cases in which charges were dismissed. In fact you even cited some of them. And I never stated that I am not interested in innocent clients -- that is absurd -- a reporter wrote that in a puff piece. And find me a criminal defense attorney who only represents innocent people. You won't.

As for name calling, kind of ironic considering the uninvited insanity that you placed in my email inbox yesterday, wouldn't you say?

[Archive]

Posted By: David Atkatz

You mean my telling you that I couldn't care less about what you posted here about me, but to leave my children and our familial relationship out?

And how you refused?

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

At least they write well so we have that going for us....I always enjoy a nicely worded and punctuated insult....kind of like the smell of napalm in the morning!!

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Wakefield

Respectfully, Jeff, Our Constitution doesn't do what you say. It is a power-limiting document, not a right-giving document. Thirteen colonies / independent states got together to form a Union of States, and to give it limited power. Most power they reserve to themselves. The Constitution does not give us freedom of speech. If one reads it, it can be seen that it restrains Congress from abridging our freedom of speech. The Constitution limits what Congress and the federal government can do. The President and the Feds don't want us to think of it that way, schools don't teach it that way to kids... but that is the truth of it.

[Archive]

Posted By: David Atkatz

Leon, a sense of humor is always appreciated!

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

David, my involvement with this thread started with a discussion with Al about the possible tax implications of an Obama presidency. Of course, you attacked me out of left field -- which precipitated this. I have never insulted your children or your wife(s) as I never inquired into even the existence of them. I simply don't care other than to hope that if you had any of such that you treated them better than you treat the young students whom you seem to delight in torturing.

I'm going to play tee-ball with my kids now. I'll be taking my wife along but leaving the dog at home so that he can rest up until the kids come back and chase him some more. I hope your Sunday improves.