Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - wrhssaxensemble

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 17
41
General Board / Re: Fifth Tier Toilet
« on: July 09, 2008, 12:17:28 PM »
Can't wait to see it happen and not just because it will make my school look even better by comparison.

The problem isn't that there are too many law schools, it is that there are too many law students. I think part of this is the overreliance on LSATs and the view that there is no one major to prepare you for law school.... this in turn makes everyone who can test well enough think they can be a lawyer even though the two aren't directly correlated.

My solution is to get the schools to lower class sizes. My school has 125 or so per class so about 400 students in total  (including 4Ls and LLMs). Suffolk, in contrast, has about 1800 students in total. As much as I like Suffolk, that is way too much and is only emblimatic of some other law schools with student bodies that are way too big. Cut down on the student body size, less reliance on LSATs (so the admissions committees will be more likely to look at the whole picture regarding a candidate; a lazy but smart kid who gets 179 with a 2.0 GPA won't beat a hardworker who has a 160 and 3.9), more course recommendations for undergrad and it will make the law schools more competitive. The added competition will make it so there can be more law schools without oversaturating the market with incompetent attorneys


42
However, they do not cite evidence of bad faith, only a change of mind. Simply showing a change of mind is necessary, but not sufficient to show he has done something wrong in this arena.


Just as you don't cite your claims about that ranking being erroneous. I knew when I posted that you made previous reference to this finding but you never really supported it or cited with a source why it was wrong. You more or less just made a broad blanket assessment that it is invalid.

Also, you have not chosen to rebut what I wrote. As I said, he is more liberal that most senators, not THE most liberal senator. That is a different debate which although also supports my view is not what I am arguing. I laid out why he is more liberal than most senators just from a mathematical stand point without even getting into policy positions and you still haven't adequately rebutted it.

Face it, even if Obama isn't the most liberal senator (which he might very well be as well), he is still more liberal than most senators as I have pointed out

43
Quote
Actually, the average democrat is too liberal for me but regardless, Obama is one of the most liberal of them all. Even if he wasn't, just the fact he is liberal shows he is more to the left than most senators. Assuming they evenly break down into about 1/3 conservative, 1/3 moderate, 1/3 liberal (which is not the precise case but generally somewhere around those lines), the fact Obama is a liberal shows he is more to the left than 66.6% of all the senators. The fact he is very liberal makes that margain even higher. Even if we were to assume it is more like 25% conservative, 40% moderate and 35% liberal, he is still more to the left than 65% of the Senators. Thus, regardless of how you slice it, he is always going to be further to the left than most senators unless all the senators (or a huge number at least) start shifting dramatically that way, which is not the case at hand.

You have provided nothing to support your assertion that Obama is "the most liberal of them all"

And not everyone fits neatly into the categories of "liberal and conservative". Obama is pro death penalty (for example).


http://www.npr.org/blogs/news/2008/01/obama_ranked_most_liberal_sena_1.html


no but you can make generalizations. For example, if you look at Bush's record he is pro illegal immigration and pro-spending... but that doesn't mean he is a leftwinger. Additionally, although he is not a politician, Bill O'Reilly is anti-death penalty but is a conservative. Likewise, Obama can be generalized as a liberal and more liberal than half the senate and thus more liberal than most senators

44
Despite what has often been said, he is no more liberal than any other Democrat. The "most liberal senator" thing is based off a magazine assigning rather specious categories for "liberal" or "conservative" votes, often assigning those categories to votes that were essentially non political.

If the average Democrat is too liberal for you, that's fine, but to say he is more than most is just not accurate.


Actually, the average democrat is too liberal for me but regardless, Obama is one of the most liberal of them all. Even if he wasn't, just the fact he is liberal shows he is more to the left than most senators. Assuming they evenly break down into about 1/3 conservative, 1/3 moderate, 1/3 liberal (which is not the precise case but generally somewhere around those lines), the fact Obama is a liberal shows he is more to the left than 66.6% of all the senators. The fact he is very liberal makes that margain even higher. Even if we were to assume it is more like 25% conservative, 40% moderate and 35% liberal, he is still more to the left than 65% of the Senators. Thus, regardless of how you slice it, he is always going to be further to the left than most senators unless all the senators (or a huge number at least) start shifting dramatically that way, which is not the case at hand.

45
I don't know, I'm a pretty good judge of character and I think I have you pegged:  your an Obama fan.  Looks like he has your vote sealed up tight.  Checkmate. 

Who? Me or the OP?

46
Two questions:
1. Does it disturb anyone else that he locked up the nomination by taking a hardline stance, and now that he is nominated he is abandoning that stance?  He has already abandoned very important promises that he made, and he isn't even president yet.

Doesn't disturb me at all. As much as he likes to pretend to be different, he is just another politician except further to the left than most and also less experienced than most. This is seperate though from saying he abandoned his promise. He might still intend to keep it but is just trying to move to the middle to try to dupe the moderates into voting for him. His recent comments on things ranging from faith based initiatives to gun control to the war which completely contradict his previous views would be hillarious if he had no chance of getting away with it. Unfortunately, the media is in bed with him and with this "Obama is Messiah" complex many (although not most) of his supporters seem to have, especially those in the media, it is unlikely that it will recieve much airplay.

Two questions:
2.  Can someone explain to me the difference, if any, between McCain/GWB's policy and Obama's?  Is there one?


Again, who knows what Obama would actually do if he was in office, but as of now, the only difference is that the media questions McCain's and GWB's policies even though they have been consistent but seldom, if ever, question Obama's even though they seem to change daily.

47
General Board / Re: The End of the World
« on: July 07, 2008, 11:06:35 AM »
What do you think?

well, if/when the socialist Barack Obama becomes president [long political rant edited out for your enjoyment]

but no seriously, if Julie Fern was president of the US.... now then we would all be really screwed

48
2L job search / nevermind
« on: July 07, 2008, 10:24:17 AM »
Thanks

49
This is exactly why I always advise pre-laws to go to a local state school with little or no money over an expensive private school with a conditional scholarship. Often times, the state school ends up being cheaper overall even when you factor in the money at the private school for 1L year.

It sucks though when your state does not have a law school (the few of us out there)... my state tried to start one but the big shots who are Harvard/BC/BU grads got pissed about the idea and cut it down in the state legislature

50

julie wrong, confusing first post with this claptrap:

I agree, this poll is slightly off since there are/have been socialist fascists. For example, few would argue that Hitler wasn't a fascist but he was also a socialist (Nazi party stood for national socialism). Although I don't think McCain or Obama are fascists ( go ahead and attack me Julie... I can't wait to see your caveman-like response to this) it is possible a socialist can be a fascist, perhaps even more so than a right-winger could be a fascist.


Ultimately I see the political spectrum from left to right as:

Fascists and Communists---- Socialist---- Leftist/American Liberal--- Moderate Left---Center---Moderate Right---Rightwing/Classical Liberal/American Conservative--- Far-Right--- Anarchists--- Klansman etc.

with libertarians squeezed in their somewhere but probably closer to the right




Which part are you having trouble with? That the Nazis were fascists or that they were Socialists? Both are pretty heavily documented if you bother to actually do the research

This gives me a bad taste in my mouth. Sure they engaged in kind of socialist behavior in that they wanted to spread out the wealth and fix the inflation problems of the 30s, but I assure you, when hitler nationalized Germany's industry, it wasnt just to give people jobs. It was out of a purely nationalist agenda in order to supercharge the German economy to accrue lebensraum. Communist International they were not; indeed the eastern front of world war 2 was the culmination of right vs left. Stalin was totalitarian...but definitely not fascist.

Fascist = Franco Mussolini Hitler, and maybe Juan Peron and Salazar
Creepy Socialist totalitarianism = Castro, Mao, Pol Pot, and maybe the North Korean regime, although im not sure that that even qualifies.

Edit: I wonder if they through socialist in their title in 1924 to get a bunch of the German industrial workers classes to pay them part dues.

The nationalism was largely a part of the fascist nature of their regime. Your point, while interesting, accidentally misrepresents the facts. I do not know a lot about the internal policies of Peron, Salazar and to a lesser extent Franco, but I do know that Mussolini followed the same model as Hitler. In fact, Hitler built his policies in part off of what Mussolini did in Italy. They were both socialist economically though. Yes, they were not communist but that was a division within the left itself not the right against the left. Show me one policy where both favored the free markets over a government run economy. The fact of the matter, is that you can't because their brand of socialism is inseperable from their totalitarian approach to things. Nobel winner Fredrich Hayek had it right in Road to Serfdom, not that I expect many liberals to actually read that book.

I dont think that just because you have a planned economy you have a socialist economy. I.e. there is a difference between building an economic machine purely for military conquest and imperialism, and building an economy to promote a global workers rebellion against the bourgeoisie.

Right, the first is more socialist and the second is more comunist in their approaches. Thats not to say the Soviets were socialist instead of communist mind you, only to note that it is much more likely for a commie to talk about a global workers rebellion than a socialist

you have no idea what you talking about. what up, you just write C- paper on this for your high school?

Actually, I am guessing, based on your writing style alone that all of my papers have graded better than yours. Regardless, this is from a nobel prize winner:

It is a common mistake to regard National Socialism as a mere revolt against reason, an irrational movement without intellectual background. If that were so, the movement would be much less dangerous than it is. But nothing could be further from the truth or more misleading. The doctrines of National Socialism are the culmination of a long evolution of thought, a process in which thinkers who have had great influence far beyond the confines of Germany have taken part. Whatever one may think of the premises from which they started, it cannot be denied that the men who produced the new doctrines were powerful writers who left the impress of their ideas on the whole of European thought. Their system was developed with ruthless consistency. Once one accepts the premises from which it starts, there is no escape from its logic. It is simply collectivism freed from all traces of an individualist tradition which might hamper its realization.

....

What, then, caused these views held by a reactionary minority finally to gain the support of the great majority of Germans and practically the whole of Germany's youth? It was not merely the defeat, the suffering, and the wave of nationalism which led to their success. Still less was the cause, as so many people wish to believe, a capitalist reaction against the advance of socialism. On the contrary, the support which brought these ideas to power came precisely from the socialist camp. It was certainly not through the bourgeoisie, but rather through the absence of a strong bourgeoisie, that they were helped to power.

... the socialists of the Left approached more and more to those of the Right. It was the union of the anticapitalist forces of the Right and of the Left, the fusion of radical and conservative socialism, which drove out from Germany everything that was liberal.

The connection between socialism and nationalism in Germany was close from the beginning. It is significant that the most important ancestors of National Socialism—Fichte, Rodbertus, and Lassalle—are at the same time acknowledged fathers of socialism. .... From 1914 onward there arose from the ranks of Marxist socialism one teacher after another who led, not the conservatives and reactionaries, but the hard-working laborer and idealist youth into the National Socialist fold. It was only thereafter that the tide of nationalist socialism attained major importance and rapidly grew into the Hitlerian doctrine.

Hayek, Road to Serfdom....


Who knows more/is more intelligent? A Nobel Prize winner in Economics or Julie Fern who can barely form a coherent sentence?

do you even know what socialism is, forrest?  julie think not.

Actually, I do. Regardless, thanks again for not adequately responding to what I am saying but instead going off and hurling insults.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 17