The fact there is a need for a defence lawyer at all is the problem.
They create their own oxygen and they do so for highly profitable reasons, they profit more by the lack of evidence and no definitive answer. In many cases they make evidence inadmissible, that consigns the plaintiff to the long drawn out and expensive loss.
Even so, it's unrelated to the issues of slavery, and closer to the subjugation I discussed earlier.
In this case the plaintiff is subjugated by his defense team via a mind f#$k!
3rd time lucky.
Why are there defense lawyers? They are there to defend clients.
Why do the clients need defending? Because....in part....they have been setup by corrupt police, judges, lawyers etc
THAT is my point. THAT is in relation to slavery. Need more people making stuff....time to start a 'war on drugs' and convict a whole community/race without consequences because the system is setup for them to fail.
Now, this might only be 1% of criminals in jail as a conservative figure. That translates to 20,000 in the US alone. Thats a lot of (dodgy) free labour.
Now if that number is as large as some say, 10%, thats 200,000 people.
Its suggested that 4-5% of people given the death penalty are actually innocent.
How are so many innocent people being convicted?? What might happen in order to get so many innocent people convicted?? What type of people have that kind of power and ultimately who do they work for?
Someone has got the message i've been spouting for years!
Outside of a couple of finals when TDK did ok forward I have never seen 2 rucks work at Carlton. Can't remember the last time it was successful. Fitzpatrick/and both Jones? Nicholls and Perc? Harry and Sartori gave us good value as Sartori gave us great value up forward. We just barely saw Sartori on the park.
Can't think of much since.
In the modern game where its all about run run run.....having any amount of extra talls blokes who limit that is a curse more than a blessing.
You could accept it up forward if your 2 blokes are kicking you bags of goals between them. But 2 blokes in the ruck when you can only ever use 1 ruck at a time, that is, there is only ever 1 ballup, 1 throw-in etc at a time. I've done the figures while we were using SOS as our 2nd ruck. At best, we'd get maybe 1 extra hitout to advantage a game by playing a second ruck. The flipside is that we expect our midfielders to play an extra 50% gametime between them to compensate, clearly making them more fatigued as a result. Given they are more fatigued, their output would drop. It could drop to the point where we get less hitouts to advantage as a result negating any perceived benefit.
Now we are more setup to handle a 2nd ruck.....but if that is HOK playing there and FF and he gets 3 touches a game and spends over a half on the bench.....then output wise its even worse than playing 2 rucks.......which yields no actual benefit anyway.
If you had unlimited players on the bench, 100% you play an extra ruck.....hell, play 4! But thats not how it works.
Even if they are put there illegally in a lot of cases?
Thats not a bad deal??
Next thing youll tell me is that was all instituted by the superior race.
So I suppose in the model you propose that the police are the traders, the courts are the auctioneers and the government the new owner!
Well I can't ask if that is you Dezi, because he's dead!
I'm not proposing any model, just saying if you want free (extremely cheap labour) simply start a 'war on drugs' and that problem will be solved. Now if that 'war' involves a lot of police officers planting evidence, then they would simply be a casualty of war.
Its a deep rabbit hole if you really want to investigate, so watch your step
It's not...Kemp can go back, Derksen can come in, Young can go forward and Ruck. Which is what I'd do... or Straight swap. Reidy in, HOK out.
.
No 2nd ruck. Prefer a runner. No point having a slow ruck when you can have a runner in. Young or Harry can have those duties. Young forward though, yes.
Someone has got the message i've been spouting for years!
Does the government count as 'Australians'? They are in charge of prisons. Are people in prison free? Are people in prison forced into labour with repercussions if they do not?
Prisoners are incarcerated under our judicial system and they're not owned by the government. Prisoners are paid between $30 and $70 for a 30 hour week. Advocates maintain that's "slave labour" but with their board, lodging, education and training costing around $3,000 a week, it's not a bad deal.
Even if they are put there illegally in a lot of cases?
Thats not a bad deal??
Next thing youll tell me is that was all instituted by the superior race.
Youve said it, ive said it. Percentage is a better predictor of how well you are going rather than wins/losses and ladder position.
You can ignore it all you like and hope we can find clubs to beat up on to inflate our %, but ill give you the hot tip, i think we've already played 2 teams that are vying for the positions held by north and west coast last year.....and i think north and west coast have very much improved, especially relative to us.
No....its not meaningless. It very much has meaning and is displaying our form accurately. Form is fleeting (we hope) and % can and will change throughout the year.
However, nobody in their right mind would say Gold Coast are struggling. Nor would they say we are flying. So again, certainly not meaningless.
No, it means nothing at this stage of the year.
And is definitely not comparable to previous years
Different rules Different opposition
We win a couple of games by 40-50 points at this tme of the year and you shoot past the 100% Do that at the end of the year with bigger point totals and it doesn't cause the same fluctuations.
Watch Gold Coast's percentage drop, even if they keep winning.
I understand how % works Lods.
After what round does it suddenly start to matter? We can reconvene then if you'd like. I'm interested to see what your next excuse will be. I must say the head in the sand defence was not what i was expecting this time around, so next time will also be a surprise.
Ah I see, we argued an out on a different definition of slavery to argue we never had slavery even though the evidence runs contrary to that.
So we can argue semantics, you are right, and I am wrong, we never participated in slavery despite the evidence showing otherwise. Is that it?
It's not semantics, it's fact. Australians have never owned other people,
Does the government count as 'Australians'? They are in charge of prisons. Are people in prison free? Are people in prison forced into labour with repercussions if they do not?
I think EBs point is that the judgement before a ball was kicked in anger was premature expectations.
After 3 games last year our % was 83.3% After 3 games this year our % is 72.9%......and we were luckily enough to hold on and win one of them.
Based on form.....i'm taking last year.
Percentage is meaningless after three games. A heavy loss or a big win can change percentage from a big positive to a big negative in one game.
Do you think Gold Coast will have a percentage of 191% at the end of the year? Percentages won't settle as an indicator until well into the season.
No....its not meaningless. It very much has meaning and is displaying our form accurately. Form is fleeting (we hope) and % can and will change throughout the year.
However, nobody in their right mind would say Gold Coast are struggling. Nor would they say we are flying. So again, certainly not meaningless.
I think EBs point is that the judgement before a ball was kicked in anger was premature expectations.
After 3 games last year our % was 83.3% After 3 games this year our % is 72.9%......and we were luckily enough to hold on and win one of them.
Based on form.....i'm taking last year.
I know its hard to compare, but youre putting words in people's mouths again. Your contention was we'd go backwards where most were saying we wont miss Charlie. Thing is, are we missing Charlie? How about tdk? Or jsos?
Thing is this is what the discussion was.
Not whether or not we'd magically improve. How far back do we slide? Id wager with Charlie in, we might have done a bit better, but tdk was going anyway, and jsos is a hard one to quantify as he only averaged 12 games a season. What if he had missed these ones?
The Melbourne loss might not be as bad as we think, theyve at least got the bones of a premiership side there and some bonafide stars. We have a vanilla team, and we play vanilla footy.
Lets put it this way. If we had those 3, they'd be in the team. If we performed the same way we have, lets say we drop those 3. Then we bring in their replacements......which are the blokes currently in the team. (because we don't have the original 3). Now, since we have performed the way we have, lets piss those blokes off (the 'replacements' for the original 3). Who do we bring in?
We have gone all in with the players we have since the departure and we don't have a backup plan in place. So, like now, when it doesn't work out we are screwed. So regardless of whether those 3 leaving are/were capable of improving our performances to a point where it makes a difference on the win/loss column, now we don't even have that opportunity.
Now.....if for some reason those 3 found some half decent form, then the sky was the limit. Currently, the sky is not the limit.......instead of reaching for the stars, i think we are just trying to keep our head above water. Its a completely different mindset.
.....and on top of all that, our 'replacements' eg, HOK, Kemp.....have lost whatever short lived form they ever had compounding all of the above.
