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 - Martin Prince, Jr.
Pages: 1 2 3  5 6 7 8 9 ... 20
« on: May 29, 2008, 04:38:43 PM »
I am usually the first to criticize Clinton for various dog whistles, but I'm tired of the dishonesty about this.
Sounds like politics as usual to me.
Yes. I just worry that this smear is going to backfire.
ETA: And Obama is running as something other than "politics as usual," so it is riskier for him to act like a two-faced politician than it is for others.
As far as I know, the only mention of it from the Obama campaign was shortly after it was released they called it "unfortunate," then Obama accepted Hillary's explanation the following day. The people eating this up are the same pathetic whores in the mainstream media who fall on every other gag and gaffe. Contrast that with Clinton's daily cracks on Obama's bitterness a while ago. I may be totally in the tank for Obama, but that doesn't negate the observation that his campaign *hasn't* been feeding this thing.
« on: May 29, 2008, 04:34:30 PM »
I give that cadet props.
« on: May 29, 2008, 04:32:17 PM »
How do you only have 2 years of military experience?
It's simple. Only sign up for a 2 year contract and don't re-enlist. You don't get much bonus money that way, but the GI-Bill is the same.
When I was in there was a 36-month service obligation to collect on the GI Bill. Also, none of the services offered 2-year enlistments either (Army did 3 year contracts). Did you get out recently? Sorry for the questions, I am curious though.
« on: May 29, 2008, 02:19:40 PM »
How do you only have 2 years of military experience?
« on: May 28, 2008, 07:23:57 PM »
I've always believed the only fix would be to have a bipartisan executive branch, with the Presidency going to the candidate with the most electoral votes and the VP coming from the guy who 'lost'.
It would force both sides to work together and provide a happy little check and balance.
But we all know such an idea would fail on its face. After all, someone has to end up #2, and no one likes to lose.
Could you imagine an Obama/McCain or McCain/Obama white house?
That's because such an idea DID fall on its face, way back in the elections of 1796 and 1800. That's the reason for the existence of the 12th Amendment.
In a perfect world this sounds great, but the second a chief executive dies in office the flaws become obvious.
« on: May 28, 2008, 02:56:49 PM »
Everybody on this board seems to rave about soft factors like work experience. I would put all of my effort into getting a high LSAT score. I finished my B.A. 8 years ago, have great soft factors inculding a 4.0 M.A. and several years academic work experience.
Everywhere I was accepted, I think I would have been accepted with no soft factors. The only things that mattered were my undegrad GPA and my LSAT score. In fact, no where that I applied with median LSAT and GPA scores accepted me. I was well over in one or both categories in all the schools that accepted me. I was waitlisted at two schools where I was median though.
Does anyone on this board have a story about soft factors helping him?
Maybe you will have better luck with the process, but I think a great LSAT score is your best chance.
Gonna have to agree with this guy. Like the OP I have military experience, and while I think it played a role in financial aid offers, as a soft factor it seemed to play little to no role in admissions decisions, as they seemed very numbers-oriented. Like another poster said, take an LSAT prep course if your own self-study isn't paying dividends. A 4-6 point improvement in your score opens up another tier of schools, as well as increasing aid offers from former-target-turned safety schools, making it worth every penny.
« on: May 28, 2008, 02:39:59 PM »
I'm not sure how changing your position based on political expediency isn't "flip-flopping" by definition. I also disagree with your (empirical?) claim that McCain isn't a flip-flopper: see, e.g., http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15227.html (documenting at least 25 instances)
I do not pretend to know what motivates people to change positions. That is for that person to determine. I do not consider someone changing their mind as flip flopping. I believe that McCain may have been on the fence about it and modified his position as quickly as possibly to insure he was the nomination. I wish he wasn't because he is the only candidate that any democrat would struggle with in this election cycle.
I voted for McCain in the 2000 primary, and was pretty disappointed by the ratfuck played on him in South Carolina. That being said, the McCain of 2000 simply bears no resemblance to the McCain of 2008. On a lot of issues, on which Iraq stands head and shoulders above all, he is simply not the same person he was eight years ago.
« on: May 28, 2008, 01:55:13 PM »
Ah yes, another apologist who thinks there are no victims...[snip]
One of the leaders of the violent Weather Underground group that is responsible for terrible attacks on innocent people who has NEVER disassociated herself from their criminal activities is now a teacher at Northwestern University School of Law. Her name is Bernardine Dohrn. The fact that she is allowed to teach ANYWHERE is a travesty of our justice system.
There were no innocent victims of the Weatherman organization. All of their bombings were announced in advance. The only deaths that resulted from their bombings were 3 of their own during the bomb-making process.
This just exposes part of the difficulty of arguing with right-wingers (especially the 27 percent that are still in the tank for Bush). If reality or historical fact does not mesh with their daily talking points they ignore it. A recent great example of this ahistorical "thinking" was the recent scuffle over Obama's "appeasement" and how he's supposedly another Chamberlain. Enjoy this takedown of another winger by Chris Matthews: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHleE7dfp28
You write, and I quote: "[they] were responsible for terrible attacks on innocent people," with the clear implication of your language that they killed people. I don't endorse their methods (which is obvious from my response, your insinuations to the contrary not withstanding), but the historical record is quite clear: the only thing they damaged was property. Trying to hide your obfuscation behind several paragraphs worth of a wikipedia article won't change that.
Assumptive (something you really should deal with if you intend to argue in court). I said "terrible attacks on innocent people", with no clear implication that they killed people. TERRORISM isn't about body count, it's about creating fear.
I didn't obfuscate anything.
Property damage doesn't quite sum up what they did.
One act was to plant a bomb in the ladies room in the air force wing of the freaking pentagon.
Something that says 'no matter hw secure you are, we can still get to you.'
Clever attempt at discrediting my statement though.
So we're clear: a terrible attack on an innocent person (or people) doesn't imply that the person (or people) was the subject of violence or attempted violence? Interesting parsing. The judge will be impressed.
« on: May 28, 2008, 09:29:12 AM »
I use to really like Olbermann.
I like Olbermann, but I acknowledge he is FAAAAAAR left wing.
Statements like these don't really take into account how far the political mood of this country has shifted in the last 5 years. Olberman is "FAAAAAAR left wing" for America, circa 2002-3, but fortunately both for his Nielssen ratings and for the country, times they are a-changing.
No, statements like this simply don't take reality into account. He opposes the war, believes in universal healthcare, and makes fun of the president. This doesn't make him FAAAAAAR left wing. He's slightly to the left of Chris Matthews.
I like Olbermann, but I think he is riding his sportscaster persona a bit too far with his contempt for Clinton. (The superdelegate should take her into a room and only he comes out thing? Ugh.) Clinton's reference to the RFK assassination was tasteless. It may have even revealed some subconscious desire for an unforeseen, external event (such as a Rezko-related scandal) to take Obama out of the race. But she was not saying that she was still in the race in case he got killed. Really, I don't see how anyone could read that in her remarks. The Clinton '92 and Kennedy '68 examples were not very helpful to her case about the length of the primary season (and Bill's comment today that no one told Teddy Kennedy, Jesse Jackson, and Gary Hart to get out of their respective Democratic races early is patently absurd), but the outrage about the RFK thing is ony slightly more justified than the Auschwitz-vs.-Buchenwald b.s. If Olbermann et al. keep acting like bullies, it will end up helping her more than it hurts her.
What used to irritate me is that her campaign consistently cited fatigue as an excuse for her series of slip-ups (and did once again with the RFK bit), then somehow made the argument that she is the more qualified commander-in-chief at 3 AM. I say "used to," because she's lost, and it will become clear to the rest of the world that she has lost a week from today.
Also, if RFK, Jr says the comments don't bother him, they don't bother me.
Pages: 1 2 3  5 6 7 8 9 ... 20