Law School 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 - loki13

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 49
News Discussion / Re: POTUS
« on: November 17, 2015, 03:12:37 PM »
Out of curiosity of all the political misconduct, tragedy, and issues in the world today why so much focus on Hilary?

The entertaining, if tragic, belief that the people on this law board share his viewpoint, as opposed to viewing his political ramblings with bemused contempt, and as more appropriate fodder for a site devoted to discussing the finer details of the local dog-catcher election.

News Discussion / Re: POTUS
« on: October 29, 2015, 04:05:43 PM »
Clintons testimony should have been private because all the others were private.  Her answers to the YouTube video questions were pathetic and it made her look like an uncaring cold human being.  It humanized her and exposed her disingenuous attitude towards other human beings.  She lied about the video, she knew it was a planned military attack and admitted as much but seems to be able to live with herself.

A private session would have spared the dead victims families the pain of watching her pathetic obfuscation and untruths.

Let's try this again, what, with the basic facts and understanding.

1. "All the others were private." I realize you were born yesterday, but this is surprising. You know that there are hours, and hours, and hours of prior footage of the people that they've had before them, but you've been too uninterested to watch? You can google it! Heck, there's this thing called "Youtube" that the secretive Benghazi committee posts selected videos too. Or, if you don't have much computer knowledge, you can watch C-SPAN. Of course, since your only real point is that testimony you don't like should be secret, so as not to interfere with what you want to be true, I suppose you could have a place in Stalin's Russia.
2. Yes, it was a terrorist attack. Of course, had you paid attention to what I said, or the prior dozen or so investigations, you would have known that already. You would have already known that the State Department was going to say that this was a possibility early on, and that the CIA (not State, not the Administration) changed that. Also- it wasn't her lying. Small point, but still. Attribution is so important, isn't it?
3. As I explained to you before, I'm not partisan. I tried to explain the whole thing about polling, Bayesian predictions, and my own personal desire that facts get recounted instead of partisan BS. I'd rather Clinton didn't win- but I may end up voting for her over some of the current GOP candidates. We'll see. It's choosing between the evil of lessers. On the other hand, at least I take some small comfort in not projecting my personal "pathetic obfuscations and untruths" on to other people- so there's that, I guess.

Also? I don't seek out law discussion boards to rant about my personal and political insecurities. So I also have that working for me.

News Discussion / Re: POTUS
« on: October 29, 2015, 09:27:01 AM »
I watched hillary clinton's testimony about benghazi and think that it should have been held in private and not a public session just like all of the others.  And,  get depositions privately.  This should not have been done before the cameras, since, number one it has been a bone of contention for democrats who claim that the whole thing is fabricated to make clinton look foolish or incompetent so that it affects her ability to run for office. It has been a bone of contention for Republicans in that Americans had been killed in an attack and repeated security  requests went unattended by someone.  Also,  someone began an idiotic rumor that a YouTube video provoked an obvious, calculated military attack.

I'm an independent and some of us dont care which party is in power--- we look at the lowest common denominator.  Occam's razor, so to speak.  A. Security requests were not heeded but the system failed and perhaos not one individual is to blame.   The buck stops with the one at the top--that would be Clinton-- but she doesn't subscribe to that whole  heartedly since she still seeks higher office.  She admits to the letters and the dictionary meaning of the word "responsibility" and that is fine, too because she was not hands on responsible for the lack of security.

  But her email to her daughter marked against her words vibrating over the metal caskets of our murdered Americans into the ears of Chris Stevens mother and father and the other family members also SHAMEFULLY RESONATES with this Independent as hollow, cold, uncaring, and sinister.

Let me see. Your major point is that when you are confronted with information you don't like, your reaction is that it shouldn't have been public. I understand that cognitive dissonance is a problem we all have to face, but this may take the cake. One might just as easily observe that given the number of one-sided leaks to come from the Committee (many of which are later retracted), it is fascinating to see how poorly the public sessions go. It is also been interesting to observe that the GOP prefers to keep matters, depositions, and other issues secret. Because this has nothing to do with getting the truth- but just generating popcorn for the true believers. That's the problem with politics today.

Also, "someone" didn't start an idiotic rumor regarding the Youtube video. As you would know, if you had been following the matter, there were numerous demonstrations throughout the Middle East (check out Egypt) due to the Youtube video. It was originally believed that Benghazi was a part of that, however, the original points by the State Department explicitly stated that terrorism was a possibility- this was edited out by the CIA. This has been found by ... what, the last 11 or 12 Benghazi investigations?

I am also curious as to how you, personally, ascribe responsibility, given that the head of State doesn't micromanage every single embassy (and proto-embassy) in the World (nor should the head). Was George W. Bush responsible for Sept. 11? For anthrax? Was Clinton responsible for the prior WTC bombing? Was Reagan responsible for the death of the Marines in Lebanon? Isn't Benghazi, really, Obama's fault (heh, THANKS OBAMA!).

I read this great article, by Ben Shapiro, which while I don't agree with all of it, the tone, however of the piece is dead on reflective of Clintons character . 

You had me at Ben Shaprio. As I said before, after a while, the fault ins't with the liars- that's what they do. The fault is with the people who keep lapping up the lies. When people keep saying, "Why do we have these politicians?" the fingers they should be pointing should be directed at themselves- because you are the people that lap up what they are telling you.

Garbage in, garbage out.

My last post was largely about transferring, on reread I see you want to dropout and then reapply.
Did you try BEFORE going to that school? Imagine that uphill battle PLUS explaining WHY you DROPPED OUT.
Seems doable but stupid to me. I feel a huge case of the "I am going to get bad grades but it is THEIR fault because THEY are stupid (not me never me)......."
Maybe you should just quit and stay quit kid.

Yeah, but no. 1) I'm part-time; 2) I have a B average so far, and the material is not hardly the problem. That being said, with respect, your assumption that this is about possible poor grades is wholly incorrect. I just genuinely hate it here.

I would like to provide helpful advice, but I'm not sure how to help. For starters, I don't know how you would know your grades. At the law schools I am familiar with, students do not know their grades until a few weeks into the second semester. I didn't know my first semester grades until nearly February.

Second, you haven't identified *why* you hate it. Your classmates? The material? The teachers? The location? What? Very few people love law school their first year. To the extent that they like it, it's because they are learning while they are working themselves to death. You have to be more specific. Unless you can identify what it is, specifically, you don't like, no one can help you understand if things would get better.

Finally, I don't think you understand the difference between dropping out and re-applying, as opposed to doing your best and trying to transfer. IME (which is anecdotal, not statistical), I have not known any 1L dropouts that re-applied successfully to another school within a year. Your experience may be different- but given that you've described your school as provisionally accredited and you've only stated your reason for dropping out as "hating it" I'm not sure that will be looked on favorably.

Yea if this is true I don't know if an online law school board is the best place to post allegations of this nature.

I didn't want to wade into this, since the whole thing seemed a little ... off (just look at the story), but apparently there are issues with this. The individual referenced has had a cyberstalker set up a bizarre Yelp account, pinterest account, and a twitter account, and has repeated this exact same post on multiple forums. The post on reddit was pulled down because the facts were ... not correct.

Someone has also attempted to defame the individual's son.

Now, I have no personal knowledge of these events, but this seems ... way weird. It would appear that there is a concerted effort to do something bad, here, and this post is part of it.

General Board / Re: Would This Be A Helpful Website?
« on: October 28, 2015, 10:55:25 AM »
I am in the process of designing a website for law students and lawyers looking for a jobs at law firms. The site would basically list user names of users and (1) tier of school they attended, (2) rank at that school, (3) firms they applied to, (4) whether they received a callback, (5) whether they received an offer, and (6) offered salary if they received an offer. You could then search by school or by firm to see comparable users and who obtained what types of jobs.

I am just trying to gauge some interest before I put in the time and effort here.

This would be an excellent resource, if you could pull it off. Lawschoolnumbers was amazing for applications- and the job process is so much more difficult. However, here's the various problems.

1. Confidentiality. How are you going to build that trust. People don't like to disclose these types of things, and people don't like to disclose failures. Also might be hard to ween out false submissions.
2. "Tier of school?" That's completely unhelpful. You need more granular data- but the more granular, the less anonymous. If you have exact school ranking, and exact school rank, then it's no longer anonymous. Too fluffy (tier of school, quartile of school ranking) and it's not helpful enough.
3. Salary is widely known for most large- and mid-size firms. This would be most helpful for the smaller firms.
4. Network effects- this website only becomes useful as more people use it.

Just spitballing here- if you can pull this off, it would be amazing. In addition, if you can make it a viable property, someone will want to buy it.

News Discussion / Re: POTUS
« on: October 28, 2015, 09:33:48 AM »
Chewbacca for President 2016!

Chewie is fine. But I'm all in for Emperor Palpatine.

News Discussion / Re: POTUS
« on: October 27, 2015, 11:00:14 AM »
If you can recognize the interest in a nixonian politician you don't belong in this discussion. There are plenty of other topics you can discuss on lsd.

Here's the funny thing- I do contribute to other conversations on LSD. And I have for years and year- pretty much since the board started. Because I did the whole "applying to law school, going to law school, working in BigLaw" type of thing. And it is my understanding that a board called "Law School Discussion" is primarily about law school, and discussions thereof.

You, near as I can tell, have only posted on this board regarding political topics. Which, you know, I suppose is fine and all, although there are probably at least one million more appropriate sites than that. That said, if you have actual substantive things to write about politics it would be nice. Instead of the same old tired things anyone can see in the comment threads of a local Idaho newspaper. In addition, when you are corrected on the legal issues you wish to bring up (which are few and far between, as opposed to your invariably incorrect "popcorn" predictions), it would be nice if you would drop them.

As was explained to you, the initial leaked reports that Clinton was being investigated were incorrect. That the FBI is conducting an investigation into the overall matter is correct, but she is not the target of an investigation; that was a retracted story. I realize that you don't have the time or energy to get these basic facts correct, even when it was explained to you over five weeks ago, but it is what it is.

And, as I explained to you before, I am not a fan of Clinton. I am not a fan of any of the people currently running. I do try to keep abreast of current events, and I do try to keep my opinions based on observable facts. You may find that you will be less disappointed with reality when you base your opinions on what is occurring, as opposed to what you want to believe.

If you want to dislike Clinton, more power to you. That's fine! Heck, if you want to rant and rave about how you dislike Clinton, go right ahead- you can certainly join others in doing so. But if you would like to use a law school discussion forum to rant and rave about politics, please expect some pushback when you are stating facts that aren't true. I will again refer you back to the prior discussion. That should've settled. I suggest going back to your popcorn.

News Discussion / Re: POTUS
« on: October 27, 2015, 08:06:51 AM »
You are really a funny one. 

If you believe that no candidate is being investigated by the FBI that is fine. 
But the fact is that James Comey, the director of the FBI is following closely  the FBI  investigation of one particular candidate who is running for president.

No... I'm a serious one. This was explained to you back on, inter alia, August 18. This *was* a board for legal students and want-to-be legal students. There are 0Ls, law students, and legal practitioners who used this board at one point still ghosting here.

I have no problem with your bizarre political rants and opinions- after all, it helps me know what won't happen. But please stop spreading false "facts" that you've learned from some disreputable new site. There are devoted websites for that, where other misguided people will agree with you, and then you will be shocked when nothing happens, and then forget about it the next day. Oh, I forgot, the obligatory, BENGHAZI!!11!!!! *sigh*

News Discussion / Re: POTUS
« on: October 26, 2015, 12:12:27 PM »

So, where am I wrong again?

Unless you csn prove the FBI are in holloween costumes concealing that they are really Republicans I will continue to enjoy the show.

I think it would be better to ask- where have you been right? You do understand, don't you, that every single one of your statements (pretty much) has been incorrect. Whether it has been a political prediction (fireworks at the Benghazi hearing! Biden will enter the race!) or whether it has been a factual recounting of events (didn't understand that the only candidate that was really under personal investigation had been Christie, didn't know the correct appellation of AUSAs, etc.).

I suggest, in the future, that you stop eating so much popcorn, and start trying to understand things independently of a) what you want to be true, and b) what people keep telling you is true.

And finally, again, I will reiterate- if you keep getting lied to, and are eager to keep swallowing the lies, that fault isn't  with the liars- it is with you.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 49