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 - kingofspain
Pages: 1 2  4 5 6 7 8 ... 49
« on: April 20, 2006, 04:44:01 PM »
can someone explain to me why people care so much about gas prices? i drive about 30 mins to work every day and i have to fill up less than once a week. my car takes 13.5 gals. so lets say i use 10 gals a week x .50 cents extra per gallon- 5 bucks a week. a little annoying sure, but worth getting so worked up about it like some people do?
« on: April 20, 2006, 04:21:18 PM »
Well since this has turned into a LEEWS thread...
It's nothing ground breaking. In fact, it's basically stuff any 3L could tell you (though it's more focused). But what it does do is bring you up to speed for your first exams-- essentially so you hit the ground running. It's a good, comprehensive system to exam taking.
I would recommend going through it once lightly before school starts. DO NOT try to learn everything.. just take in what you can get, and ignore the rest. Then around November, do the program again in ernest. I'm about to do the program again for my May exams!
it served you well first semester i guess?
« on: April 20, 2006, 04:20:02 PM »
ah... for me, i think that beginning in high school, all children should have the option of taking a comparative religion elective that covers at very least the major western religions.
too much of our daily experience is intertwined with this stuff... there's no avoiding it, so might as well equip our kids to understand some of it
Not very controversial!
read a couple posts down-- it's definately controversial. if you don't see why, then you just can't fully consider either side of the religion in school argument....
i like your idea. i'm not religious myself but i can't understand why people are so afraid of religion- maybe this would help.
« on: April 20, 2006, 04:18:34 PM »
what the bad word. Can someone explain why the isht isn't free by now? What are we doing in Iraq?
looks like the "we're invading Iraq for oil" stuff was just nonsense...
« on: April 20, 2006, 04:17:45 PM »
hmmm, so you guys prob wouldnt like the idea of splitting the us in 2 at all.
we could move the leberals to one side, call it the US of free thinking
move the conservatives to the other side, call it Heavens doorstep.
I'd like to exile all those who think they are morally superior because of their political beliefs... how's that for contraversial.
« on: April 20, 2006, 04:16:25 PM »
hm. that's a good point, but i still think that the bulk of the population (the majority), regardless of where they live, is suposed to decide the vote.
Why is that? Because the U.S. is a democracy right? WRONG. The U.S. was never intended to be such. It has only shifted from a slightly democratic federation to more a fully-fledged democracy due to scheming politicians, apathetic citizens, and a horrid public education system.
The Electoral College is one of the fews safeguards against a tyrannical majority left in the federal election system. Its primary purpose (aside from practical/logistical matters relevant to the U.S. in the 18th century) was to help protect small individual states by providing them with a greater presence in presidential elections than their smaller populations would otherwise allow. It forces cantidates to appeal to the interests of people from various parts of the country.
Abolishing the EC would be yet another blow to states rights and would further undermine our republican form of government.
the electoral college was primarily meant as a compromise during the writing of the constitution between those who wanted the president elected directly by the people and those who wanted him elected by the states. in some states the state legislatures chose the electors.
« on: April 20, 2006, 04:05:22 PM »
Just ordered LEEWS, thanks for the advise
so is LEEWS really that good? i was just about to order it too after reading this thread.
« on: April 20, 2006, 03:54:12 PM »
well i'm going to excuse myself from this thread.
« on: April 20, 2006, 03:01:32 PM »
Ad hominem. There are no sources on politics that you would trust to give fair portrayal.
Worst post ever? No, but the Rolling Stone on politics - c'mon, I'd trust them to give a fair portrayal of Bush about as much as I'd trust Cooley to rank law schools . . .
True - the attack was ad hominem, but solely out of laziness. All of the points the author makes have counterpoints, I'm simply not going to go through them all and retort them. In virtually every sentence, the author uses loaded language. Take, for example: "the Bush administration . . . threatens to overturn the Framers' healthy tension in favor of presidential absolutism." You can argue that this is the case, or you could argue that too much power currently resides in the congressional and judicial branches, and that Bush is balancing it back out.
I attempt to formulate my opinions from a wide variety of sources - when short on time, I try to at least keep up with the Washington Post and the Washington Times; when I have more time, I expand to sources such as the BBC, National Review, Slate, and many others. But based on the political arguments I've read in the Stone, I don't read any more - they're too predictable. I'm also suspicious of any author who does a story on the worst presidents of all time and fails to mention incompetently corrupt presidents such as Grant and Harding.
I think the president will certainly be remembered as a simple man, but he's likely to be remembered very differently by different types of people. There are still farmers in remote regions of China where Mao is remembered fondly, even I would argue that his domestic policies proved far more dangerous than Bush's.
And if the Middle East were to become broadly democratic, our improved relations with them and a reduced threat of terrorism would be considered worth the cost to many people; the cost-benefit here is highly subjective. I never said I think it's likely that the Iraq war will be a good investment in the long run, but I do think it's possible. Also, the future is so difficult to predict - attempting to rate him amongst the all-time presidents while he's still in office is, IMO, a waste of time. Notice that in a recent LSD poll of one's favorite presidents in US history, Clinton was the top vote getter. 100 years from now, nobody will remember anything that he accomplished (although he did a great job of keeping us on our economic course, that's not what legacies are made of).
Iraq will be Bush's signature issue in the long term - everything else you mentioned is a mere swinging of the pendulum, likely to slip through the cracks in the history books.
i think this is an excellent post. i think bush will be remember 100 years from now as an average president, but legacies change well after a president has left office as later events put his presidency in prespective.
« on: April 20, 2006, 02:59:41 PM »
Iraq is an unmitigated disaster, we have no viable way out for years to come.
the image of him sitting there while the country is under attack is indelible.
you're right he should've jumped in a room full or children and started panicing... now that's leadership.
Pages: 1 2  4 5 6 7 8 ... 49