He’ll guarantee it, right?

Best case scenario, business school is a way to check a box for a degree that some company still requires if you aren’t related to an executive, and get the slightest bit of networking establishment. If you are lucky, you might learn how to properly do some bookkeeping if you want to start your own business. Beyond that, the shit is so trivial and obvious that every dime wasted on it should set you back from your business career for making such an unprofitable decision.

And dudes who barely passed, failed, or dropped out of business school despite how unrigorous it is still end up millionaires often enough because business doesn’t reward intelligence and hardwork, despite the bootstrap narratives all the wealthy “geniuses” play up. It rewards callousness, ambition, manipulation, and a ton of luck.

There would be, maybe, 4 business professors then.

Frankly, taking advice from Stupid is a step up from taking advice from Evil. Natalie Harp over Stephen Miller any day.

Reasonable doubt would be the standard then. But also it’s ultimately an academic question because no prosecutor that isn’t being a pedantic and/or vindictive asshole will try someone for this statute violation based on someone erroneously representing their credentials but not acting upon that misrepresention. This law is meant to protect people from fraudsters claiming to be lawyers. Not for the law equivalent of stolen valor. It’s still illegal (and sad/scummy) but no one is going to waste their time trying this case.

That is not true. More than a few laws have been created, enforced and had judgements executed on them that were vague as fuck. Part of a judge’s job is interpreting the law. Defining your terms adds clarity, but that is not a requirement. And were it a requirement, then you just move the goal post to defining your definition.

You can add the definition:

Referring to yourself by the terms “lawyer” or “attorney” qualify as representing yourself as one who practices or may practice law.

Well what do you mean by “referring”? In writing? Verbally? In specific contexts? While soliciting business? Do you have to specifically say “I am a lawyer” or does implying you are one counts?

What do you mean by “yourself”? Your qualifications? Your clothing/appearance? Your mindset? Your future goals? Your idealized self?

You get the point. If you had to list every single way that a law could be broken, and define every single term within it (and within that, and within that, and within that, ad nauseum), then absolutley no law would be enforceable. Some amount 9f colloquial understanding of terms is required, as is intent.

That’s why people argue about the actual meaning of the 2nd Amendment, for example. They argue about the framers’ intent, context, verbiage, historical precedent, practicality, etc. and lawyers and judges OFTEN come up with conflicting interpretation. That doesn’t mean that the law gets thrown out. It means that judicial interpretation, precedent, practicality, and stare decisis (i.e. deference to the decisions of a higher court) all have a part to play in law.

He did say vote like it is him on the ballot. I will treat every Republican accordingly. I’d sooner snap my finger off than tap the name with an ® next to it.

The law says that misrepresenting yourself as one who practices or may practice law is the violation. It does not specify that you refer to yourself by any specific terms.

There is no legal distinction between “lawyer” or “attorney” in California law. And speaking from nearly 4 decades of being an American and native English speaker, there is no colloquial difference either. They are used interchangeablly.

Whatever lax meaning they are trying to project onto the term “lawyer” was made up wholecloth by them to obfuscate her (criminal) lie.

That was also probably the goal. By talking about it constantly and making it sound more intense and interesting to everyone, it both scares their people more and intrigues other people. They bring the obedient and impressionable in and compel them to not partake, and they push the rebellious and skeptical into doing the thing they are already demonizing. You freely enjoyed a form of media because they demonized it and thus the hordes of heathens grew, strengthening their influence and control over the in-group.

That plan: Whine about how you can’t get anything done with Trumps veto power, so you’ll just have to continue to capitulate to his every whim while you fundraise on your failures…

It’s all one big incestuous swamp, isn’t it.

Bro… did you guys know that she was not only Trump Jr.'s fiancée but also was MARRIED to Gavin Newsom!? Her type is apparently greasy rich white guy who is literally one of the worst people in their respective political parties who fucking hates poor people.

Antitrust laws? In what way is refusing to cover the president non-competitve, monopolistic or predatory to consumers?

it was

What was

and you admitted it

Admitted what?

Your communication skills need some work. I suspect your reading comprehension needs some work too if you think I “admitted” to something.

And here we are cheering on Laura Ingaraham for her journalistic integrity…

Being an entitled out of touch loser does not mean that every utterance from his lips is factually incorrect. And it is really fucking stupid to project meaning onto someone you don’t like to turn a factually correct statement into an incorrect one out of your hatred of the person. Especially when we are talking about the head of CMS’s comment on the price of fucking butter like that is even remotely relevant. What is stupid here is that they were even discussing prices in this interview like Oz has anything at all to do with it.

OK? I just read the quote in the article and the words he said was true. I’m certain that Oz is an out of touch rich asshole, but the statement he mad was correct. If I were to venture a guess, he was probably parroting some PR goon that made the comment about the price per stick and then the out of touch loser called a whole pack a stick. Regardless though, the price per stick comment was correct enough and even if it weren’t I don’t really care.

There are so so many things that this administration says and does that are asinine at best, blatantly evil at worse. Shit like this is a distraction and a non-issue. Who gives a fuck if he said butter was 1 cent a stick. He’s a rich prick. I don’t expect him to know a fucking thing about grocery prices. I’m more concerned with his policies as the head of CMS and how they will fuck over those on medicaid and medicare.

If I just need butter in something with a lot of bigger flavors, I’ll use the cheaper stuff. If I’m making a grilled cheese, toast, frying an egg, etc. where I’m gonna taste the butter, I usually use kerrygold. I try to buy it in bulk when it is on sale, though. It is considerably more expensive.

Lol mkay. Bye.

Not watching the video right now, but the quote in the article is

“Stick of butter, bag of peanuts. Butter in America, it’s about a buck [for] a stick like this.”