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 - Martin Prince, Jr.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 20
41
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
Ah yes, another apologist who thinks there are no victims...[snip]

Unresponsive.

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.

42
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

43
Black Law Student Discussion Board / Re: The Thread on Politics
« on: May 27, 2008, 02:23:07 PM »
I use to really like Olbermann.

LOL

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.

44
Law School Applications / Re: How do you do it?!
« on: May 25, 2008, 03:09:28 PM »
is that really it?  should i bag the fluff (extracurriculars) and just buckle down and work harder to try and up my LSAT?  I didn't think it was so cut and dry. 

It is that cut and dry. Many will try to persuade you that it is not with anecdotal arguments, but don't be fooled. The examples they cite are the exceptions. It's almost all about the numbers. Don't bag the extracurriculars, but if you have to choose between volunteering three nights a week somewhere and improving your LSAT by 5 pts, choose the LSAT. You can volunteer all you want later and by then you'll have a spiffy law degree that you'll be able to use to help people out.

Percentage wise, I'd say adcomms treat the numbers as constituting about 80-90% of the strength of any given application. What say ye, audience?

I concur.

Me too.

46
[quote author=Martin Prince, Jr. link=topic=4010742.msg5106831#msg5106831
The mechanism available in the US to avoid rewarding bad behavior is to vote the offending party out of office until they have learned their lessons. Rewarding the Republicans by giving them the White House for another four years strikes me as pretty daft, in light of what they have done with the last eight. Looking at polling data, it appears most Americans agree.

I'm going to vote for president based on those 7 things I listed..  and if I can't decide, then I'll vote for whichever person I think will do a better job when faced with a major crisis. 

[/quote]

Shrug. If I had the energy I'd point out and list the ways in which Bush and the Republican Party have failed on all the (slightly scattershot, but hey, they're your reasons, not mine) points you say your vote will be based on, but I'm in a pretty bad mood so I'lll spare you and just reiterate: rewarding their failures helps ensure their repitition. Keep that in mind in November.

47
I am with Jack on this one.  It is not good to jump on the two party bandwagon if no party is getting it done.  I feel like I am only choosing which illusion to accept as reason for the advancement of the police state, threat from environment or threat from terrorist.  Fear does no illicit rational behavior in most.

The solution to your problem (the "two party bandwagon") is for you to move to a country with proportional representation at the ballot box, like you'll find in many European democracies. Barring that, you can convince 50 state legislatures to vote against their interests and award seats in Congress proportionally. You tell me which is more likely.

Is it my fault that the republicans screwed up ALL of those things?  Bill Clinton was probably more conservative in relation to those 7 points than Bush is.
And if you care about social issues such as Abortion and Gay Marriage then it's probably good to remember that the President can't do much about those.

Go ahead and disagree about the 2nd ammendment, taxes, education, ANWR, and trade, but please stop considering the republicans as true representatives of conservative ideals.

The mechanism available in the US to avoid rewarding bad behavior is to vote the offending party out of office until they have learned their lessons. Rewarding the Republicans by giving them the White House for another four years strikes me as pretty daft, in light of what they have done with the last eight. Looking at polling data, it appears most Americans agree.

48
Black Law Student Discussion Board / Re: The Thread on Politics
« on: May 22, 2008, 09:48:31 AM »
Hillary last night compared her self-serving, hypocritical struggle to seat the Michigan and Florida delegates in the most favorable way to 1) freeing the slaves, 2) Seneca Falls, suffrage, and the women's rights movement, 3) Bush v. Gore, and 4) the election in Zimbabwe.




I remember once liking her a great deal.


Now I can't even listen to the sound of her voice.

49
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Presidential Oath of Office
« on: May 21, 2008, 05:55:26 PM »
Observe there is no oath to "the nation" or to "the flag."

To the OP: I'd say it means adhering to the rule of law, and recognizing and having faith that the Constitution provides a mechanism for dealing with almost all of this nation's challenges. Shredding the 4th Amendment and gobbling up Article 1 powers under a unitary executive vision seem at odds with this oath, wouldn't you agree?

Interesting use of the word "shredding".  I agree that "shredding" the 4th admendment and "gobbling up" article one would be at odds with this oath.  Now if you're talking about the patriot act, then remember that it was an act of congress.  Whether or not protecting the United States from foreign invasion at the expense of certain individual privacy rights is a good idea should be up to the legislature. 


Does "Jack Bauer" feel squeamish about my word choice? As for Congress, it was an independent body in name only from 2002-2006. If I recall, Bush's singular veto of that time was a bill legalizing the limited use of stem cells. Indeed, its "independence" was part of the point I was making, but I was principally referring to the series of legal memoranda the DOJ used to justify all sorts of unconstitutional behavior. See here for more.

As for: "Whether or not protecting the United States from foreign invasion at the expense of certain individual privacy rights..." This is a false choice that many have been deceived into accepting. The reason FISA exists is to have a system of legally protecting our rights while ensuring security *within* the constitutional framework. If authorities need to surveil a terrorist target, it can obtain a secret warrant. If time is of the essence, it can *immediately* begin surveillance, then later obtain a warrant. The administration's willingness to go beyond this demonstrates a fundamental lack of respect for the oath that Bush and all of the executive officials involved swore to.

50
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Presidential Oath of Office
« on: May 21, 2008, 04:11:33 PM »
Observe there is no oath to "the nation" or to "the flag."

To the OP: I'd say it means adhering to the rule of law, and recognizing and having faith that the Constitution provides a mechanism for dealing with almost all of this nation's challenges. Shredding the 4th Amendment and gobbling up Article 1 powers under a unitary executive vision seem at odds with this oath, wouldn't you agree?

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 20