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 - treefity350

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 30
41
General Off-Topic Board / Re: iraq timetable
« on: August 23, 2008, 04:08:22 PM »
so, if obama supposedly naive and irresponsible for proposing timetable withdraw iraq, then what that make gump and condy rice?

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hcWJu9bbzrJZ7uNHjvMn0BuTGqHQD92MMK382

 :D :D :D :D

hey archie...why u bigots all same?  ;)

listen stupid, what this mean...surge worked...kurds empowered...check the date...

aye believe it is "08" not "07" or "06"...

remember the dems back in those days wanted to divulge the strategy? give everyone a timetable in the middle of the operation...that is what is naive.

bush won argument...mccain's surge worked and now it is summer almost fall "08"...things are very different in mesopoetamia now...

aside from picking up a history book once in a while...perhaps purchasing and regarding a "2008" calendar might help as well...

and didn't aye tell you many moons ago that bush would probably be the first one to start having troops come home?








p.s. put the bottle down...and stop drinking, my man...

Never.

And by the way, I don't understand how you can say that we're not still in the middle of the operation. We're still in a war, how will the effects of setting a time table now be any different from before? If you think "empowered Kurds" will make any difference in a country where they are a miniscule minority you are ignorant. The Iraqis are still incapable of handling their own security, and our leaving will still lead to massive instability in the country.  The truth is that most dems (and now most pubs as well) want to get out of Iraq in spite of this fact. If our goal were really to ensure stability in Iraq, then we would need to be there another five years at least and stage operations in Iran as well.

The real mission is and always was to destabilize Iraq to the point where they would think about bombing each other instead of us - and though this was a counterproductive mission, Bush was right that we had accomplished our mission long ago. All our presence is doing now is ensuring that if and when the country finally does stabilize, they will all hate us.

42
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Pragmatism?
« on: August 23, 2008, 03:55:50 PM »
well, what would be the pragmatic consequences if it were?

43
General Off-Topic Board / Pragmatism?
« on: August 23, 2008, 02:14:45 PM »
OK, so I'm read Posner's newest book and its making me think that maybe something is missing in my understanding of pragmatism.  I was only a philosophy minor, and never did any real study of this system, but my understanding of the basic idea is that pragmatism refers to a concern for the actual outcomes of actions as opposed to concern with the inherent value of those actions. Correct? If so, are there some other important details that I should know about?

44
General Off-Topic Board / Re: iraq timetable
« on: August 23, 2008, 02:08:14 PM »
I've got a time table for you:

Tomorrow: Pack our sh*t and get out of there.

45
General board for soon-to-be 1Ls / Re: Men: Buying a suit...
« on: August 22, 2008, 06:47:09 PM »
My vote is for Joseph Bank. Nice suits and their sales are good and often. Also, the in store tailors tend to be very good.

46
Studying for the LSAT / Re: Formal Logic?
« on: August 22, 2008, 06:41:47 PM »
I think formal logic is great prep for the LSAT.

In fact, aside from six prep tests, its all I did.  Where it won't necessarily help you is with game setups, that is best learned from an LSAT prep company or book. But all of the LR questions can be solved with formal logic, and if you really internalize symbolic logic, then they can be done much quicker than with the limited logic that prep companies teach. That said, its alot more to learn and alot more apply. People say that they think formal logic led them to overthink, but I think it would probably be better described as underthinking - they just didn't quite understand how to apply formal logic to the questions. As I said, I only used formal logic, and I did not miss one LR question and finished both sections with upwards of ten minutes to spare.

47
General Off-Topic Board / What ya'll think bout prank calls?
« on: August 22, 2008, 06:02:53 PM »
I think they're awesome, and should be made officially legal. I like gettin' ems almost as much as I like making 'ems.

This because I had a lady actually call the cops on me. And it wasn't even a mean call.

ETA: I can't believe no one else appreciates the fine art! In protest, I have removed my fine prank call setups. Its like showing the mona lisa to a blind guy.

48
Studying for the LSAT / Re: Where is the fallacy in this statement?
« on: August 22, 2008, 12:52:55 PM »
The problem is that the premises are about percentages, while the conclusion is about raw numbers. What we know is that the PERCENTAGE of those unemployed has definitely gone down under power ranger leadership, but we don't know what the change has been in the total population. So lets say that the population started at 100 people, and that unemployment was 41% (we know that team rocket dropped unemployment by OVER 40%) This would leave 41 people unemployed.  Now, lets say that in the ten years since the power rangers took office, the population has risen to 10,000. Assuming that the power rangers brought the unemployment rate down to 2%, this would still leave 200 people unemployed, a much greater NUMBER of people, which is what the conclusion is about here.

The LSAT loves to play this game of moving from %s to raw numbers.

ok i thought this was a flaw of percentage to numbers, but the answer was "flaw is that the evidence cited in support of the conclusion actually provides more support for the denial of the conclusion."

Thats right. I was wrong. It says that that the percentage of unemployed people rose under both parties, which would provide support for the opposite of this conclusion, although it wouldn't necessarily prove that the opposite of the conclusion was true.
Lets say population started at 10,000 and 30% unemployment, that leaves 3000 unemployed. If population goes down to 100, even if unemployment rises to 65%, this still leaves a smaller number unemployed - 65.

By the way, you edited your post just now, why?

49
Studying for the LSAT / Re: Where is the fallacy in this statement?
« on: August 22, 2008, 12:42:04 PM »
The problem is that the premises are about percentages, while the conclusion is about raw numbers. What we know is that the PERCENTAGE of those unemployed has definitely gone down under power ranger leadership, but we don't know what the change has been in the total population. So lets say that the population started at 100 people, and that unemployment was 41% (we know that team rocket dropped unemployment by OVER 40%) This would leave 41 people unemployed.  Now, lets say that in the ten years since the power rangers took office, the population has risen to 10,000. Assuming that the power rangers brought the unemployment rate down to 2%, this would still leave 200 people unemployed, a much greater NUMBER of people, which is what the conclusion is about here.

The LSAT loves to play this game of moving from %s to raw numbers.

50
Maybe it's old.  I'll have to check with him on that.

Weird...I don't have that one either
U talking about Mr. Blonde?  He must be a lucky old man.


Mr. Blonde?



A crazy mofo is what he is. Hold onto your ears.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 30