ReasonablyPrudentPerson
ReasonablyPrudentPerson
ReasonablyPrudentPerson

Breach of ethics and malpractice are both civil matters (or possibly regulatory/administrative matters, depending on the state). There might also be a case for civil battery, invasion of privacy, and negligent/intentional infliction of emotional distress. However, the same underlying actions might also led to

Ok, where are the psych PHD candidates when you need them? Its time for a wide-ranging, all-inclusive, study where I can sit down all day and judge people who are judging people.

Out of curiosity, I did some googling, and this exists: http://www.mybodygallery.com/search.html?height=5%2010&weight=180&pant=any&shirt=any&triangle=&itriangle=&rectangle=&hourglass=&diamond=&round=&p=0

I agree, women seem to underestimate the importance of a pretty face. It can do wonders, after all, we spend most of our time looking at it.

Ms. Reasonably was 110 lbs, 5'10" when I met her. She had red hair, a tiny waist, and nearly comically out of proportion large breasts. She is now a brunette and 190 lbs, and many of my male friends agree that she's more attractive now than then. (Although, between you and me, she was at her attractiveness peak at

Good for you. There is a huge disparity between what fashion magazines and women think men find pretty, and what men find pretty.

A lot of good points that I think we agree on (although I think its improper for Courts to give guidance to legislative branches about future bills under the Case or Controversy clause, but that's a lost cause that I have grown to accept). My issue with how polar the debate has become is that two very important (and

Moved

Ok. Seriously, are you a troll or are you super dense AND uninformed?

No, thats the point of DOMA. The Court would need to rule rhar DOMA is unconstitutional because it violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause that requires states to respect the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state." The argument for DOMA is that: 1. Laws are given less of deference

I don't think anyone is arguing that gay marriage is unconstitutional. The arguments are that either not having gay marriage is unconstitutional because it violates the Equal Protection Clause, or that DOMA is unconstitutional because it violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause. If the Court agrees with either of

Semantics, but I believe that you mean "until the Supreme Court rules that denying gays the right to marriage is unconstitutional." There is an a huge difference between those statements.

I go to a highly-rated grad school (pure cronyism got me, I am a bag of rocks) and the women and men here are unbelievably nerdy, but mostly very socially-skilled and aesthetically pleasing.

The SEC and the Comptroller don't prosecute, at least in the sense of the word that I think you mean. Otherwise I agree, the clear answer to "Too Big to Fail" is to make them smaller. However, in my mind AIG should have been cannibalized by the free market in the first place.

I think we talking past each other

I am not sure what to are referring to. Neil Barofsky was not an auditor brought in after a consent decree. However, he did get 14 fraud conviction. Here's an article that highlights his successes and frustrations: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/14/AR2011021406089.html. Again,

1. You realize that Kim Dotcom was not convicted and has already launched a new version of Megaupload, precisely because they couldn't make their case?

Agreed. I would add that to take on Senator Warren's analogy of US Attorney's putting the pinches on regular citizens to make an example, Brokers are equivalent the middling drug dealers that the criminal justice system kicks around. Goldman, Citigroup, etc. are too sophisticated to be railroaded, even if they are

1. Which just means that putting Lloyd Blankfein in jail will slow down the hands that pull the strings of the Board of Directors at Goldman Sachs for as long as it takes to find someone with an MBA willing to accept $54 million for a 1:100 chance of going to jail.

1. Its not a compliance officer, its a forensic accountants for the FBI. They are cops with calculators.