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 - vercingetorix

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 80
61
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« on: September 21, 2008, 12:25:27 PM »
what is going to happen to Obama's massive boost in discretionary spending if the Treasury takes almost 1 trillion dollars off the table?  i think this is another serious issue facing the Obama campaign. 

62
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« on: September 20, 2008, 01:18:02 PM »


Wow.  I never realized it was possible to listen to so many inane, empty talking-points long enough and intently enough to blithely parrot this many of them.  One or two, maybe, but this much idiotic text?  Impressive.
[/quote]

http://www.dickipedia.org/male private part.php?title=Your_mom



63
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« on: September 20, 2008, 10:43:49 AM »
It's another needless, irrelevant, showboating opportunity for meddlesome legislators who have a profound need to make their personal beliefs govern the private lives of others. 
wait a minute....you just described liberals! the classic leftist position is more government is better.  didn't i just hear that boob Biden tell me that paying more taxes is somehow patriotic.  you make some good points Sax but the left wants "meddlesome legislators" to meddle even more, not conservatives (an intentional distinction here from republicans) who would be pretty happy if most of government just kind of vanished.  not all mind you, i agree with Holmes when he said taxes are the price you pay to live in a civilized society, but I think Holmes would suck start a gun if he saw how ridiculous entitlement programs have become today.

Your argument would make sense if conservatives and/or Republicans were interested in smaller government in any instance beyond those that allow them to make as much money as possible, morals and consequences aside.  The same people who whine and female dog about taxes paying for "entitlement" programs are now going to be bailed out with that same tax money, which is perfectly OK.  God forbid tax dollars should go to single working mothers or health care for the working uninsured, but hey, since the karma stick came back to hit greedy, selfish bastards upside the head, the government better open their checkbook! 

conservatives are interested in smaller government.  your impressions about who pays taxes are typical of somebody who has never filed an income tax form.  The bottom 50% of wage earners (you) pay less than 2.7% of the country's tax burden.  people who are in the top tax bracket (my wife and I before I went back to school) pay through the nose (and they pay the overwhelming majority of the taxes, the top 10% pay over 75% of our nation's taxes).  I have no problem paying for a safety net for individuals who have fallen on hard times  but only to an extent. The abuses I saw while working with Americorps for example were legion and egregious. I am not for wealth redistribution.  It is simply anti-capitalistic and therefore unAmerican.  This is why raising the FICA cap, which Obama supports is so offensive to me.  I will be giving away money with no chance of ever seeing it again.  I already tithe 10% of my income to charity thank you very much.  I don't need uncle sam taking even more and giving me no say in how it is expended.  Most of the tax load is not going to help hard-working people going through a rough patch people but  to ridiculous programs like farm subsidies for example. i agree in theory with your problems surrounding corporate bailouts.  nothing is more corrosive to capitalism in my view than privitizing profits while socializing risk.  what is incorrect is your analysis of what is going on.  Fannie/Mac are actually government backed institutions.  There is tons of blame to go around both parties ESPECIALLY the Dems (and specifically Schumer, Dodd, and yes Obama who received vast sums of money from both of these now defunct institutions) who strongly resisted greater regulation of these companies back in 2004 and 2005 (McCain is on record demanding greater regulation of precisely these companies, can you imagine, a Republican asking for greater regulation? and the Democrats voting against, along with some Republicans, it because they were lining their pockets with contributions from the companies).  Note how companies not deemed crucial to our economic recovery like Lehman have been left to fend for themselves.  This is how it should be.  Keep in mind though that the impact of a truly cataclysmic collapse on wall street would be felt far more keenly by Joe and Jane six-pack than by the wealthy who have insulated themselves from such crises through diversification. how quickly people forget that vast numbers of middle class families are now rely on mutual funds and stock portfolios to secure their futures.  The bail-out the administration will eventually hammer out over the weekend is designed to avoid this kind of system-wide shock. Conservatives aren't happy about it, but they are realists.  You can't drink so much punch you aren't willing to admit that your preferred world view isn't answering the mail for the moment.  This is certainly better than Senator Reid's response which was shocking in it's ineptness "no one knows what to do at the moment...".  Wow. Really? You can think that as a leader but don't say it.  Amazing.

64
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« on: September 20, 2008, 12:28:40 AM »
It's another needless, irrelevant, showboating opportunity for meddlesome legislators who have a profound need to make their personal beliefs govern the private lives of others. 
wait a minute....you just described liberals! the classic leftist position is more government is better.  didn't i just hear that boob Biden tell me that paying more taxes is somehow patriotic.  you make some good points Sax but the left wants "meddlesome legislators" to meddle even more, not conservatives (an intentional distinction here from republicans) who would be pretty happy if most of government just kind of vanished.  not all mind you, i agree with Holmes when he said taxes are the price you pay to live in a civilized society, but I think Holmes would suck start a gun if he saw how ridiculous entitlement programs have become today.

65
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« on: September 19, 2008, 01:08:50 PM »
What do those of you who have served think of this?  It's a genuine question.  To me, it seems crassly exploitative, but I'm curious about what you have to say.

not a high point in his campaign to be sure. he could easily have substituted his usual story with this one without making use of the dog tags.  it is difficult to abuse the war hero cachet, but is seems he has accomplished it with this rather embarrassing piece of posturing.

66
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« on: September 18, 2008, 07:43:36 AM »

are you equating fetuses with tumors? really?  so an unborn child is a tumor? i'm pretty sure that's not what you are saying, you're way too clever for that Miss P.  and is it really like a rabbit? so you find it objectionable to eat a cow but you have no problems ending a human life?  you state that you don't eat mammals. why? is it immoral to kill a mammal? but it's OK to kill humans? or that which will become human with a little time and sunshine? it seems incongruous to me that some of the most rabidly pro-abortion people are also vegans who think swatting at flies somehow upsets the cosmos. 

Weren't you in the Marines?

 :)

No, that was jeffislouie.  In case you haven't noticed, vercingetorix is Canadien.

Actually, he may have some association with Canada (he presents himself as everything from white South African to a non-white Quebequois to a back-wood Wisconsiner), and, yes, he was in the military.  Spent most of his time on helicopters in Asia, though he did at one point make some noise about being in Iraq (which was debunked by some blogger on whose blog he trolls.)  He's somewhere in his early-to-mid 30s, according to his earlier posts  His sexism and racism (he doesn't think very highly of Asians or Latinos) is fairly profound.  All and all, engaging him is probably a waste of valuable time and energy.

Fry.  I don't give a toss what you think about my "sexist" or "racist" thoughts.  I do however take umbrage when you attack my military record.  Even if this is a totally anonymous board and people can say whatever the hell they want about themselves, I have never and will never lie about my time in the Marines.  I was in Iraq and Afghanistan. I saw combat in both places.  I haven't a clue when you could ever have possibly seen this debunked by anyone since it actually happened and I would never in a million years and under any circumstance tell anyone that I wasn't were I really was, doing what I did (how's that for a Rumsfeldism?).  If you must continue with the facile ad hominem attacks (like calling someone a racist, always a safe attack, in this case groundless but safe) that's fine but let's leave my military record out of it.

67
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« on: September 17, 2008, 12:27:57 AM »
yes.  to reiterate.  it is either alive or it is not alive.  that is the issue.

No, it's not.  No one is contesting that fetuses are alive, just like tumors and the animals you hunt and the rose bush outside my window.  People are questioning whether fetuses are people.  And if you believe they are people, then your rape exception is unjustified.  It looks a lot like an evaluation of which women are "good" and which women are "fallen" to me.

I note your lack of response to anything I've said here.  It just proves to me that you are seeking to distract and agitate and not looking for a thoroughgoing conversation.  Oh, well.
are you equating fetuses with tumors? really?  so an unborn child is a tumor? i'm pretty sure that's not what you are saying, you're way too clever for that Miss P.  and is it really like a rabbit? so you find it objectionable to eat a cow but you have no problems ending a human life?  you state that you don't eat mammals. why? is it immoral to kill a mammal? but it's OK to kill humans? or that which will become human with a little time and sunshine? it seems incongruous to me that some of the most rabidly pro-abortion people are also vegans who think swatting at flies somehow upsets the cosmos. 

68
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« on: September 16, 2008, 06:47:06 AM »
yes.  to reiterate.  it is either alive or it is not alive.  that is the issue.

69
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« on: September 14, 2008, 04:36:37 PM »
I find it interesting that all parties agree that human life has value.

Is that what we agreed?  I thought it was about the value of potential life.  I see value there, but I know that others do not.

(The word "value" isn't doing a lot of work here.  For example, when I miscarried at 10 weeks there was no funeral, which is normal.  I mean, it wasn't even something I considered, even though I did grieve.  It's just not part of our culture.  Doesn't that mean something?)

it is pretty simple actually.  either it is alive, or it is not alive. 

70
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
« on: September 14, 2008, 03:42:28 PM »
I find it interesting that all parties agree that human life has value.
obviously it varies.  Tarvaris Jackson for example, is probably worth less than say, Matt Birk.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 80