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 - Leaf2001br
Pages: 1 2 3  5 6 7 8 9 ... 69
« on: April 22, 2006, 01:38:03 AM »
You may feel surprise, but our government has stronger power than US government. It plays a so important role that it almost can do everything it wants, including good things and bad things. I also wonder if the government can find the truth.
Sadly, the current custodians of our own government have already begun the process of steering it in this direction. Historically, this kind of momentum towards increasingly concentrated power, nationalism, and unaccountability has been irreversible. Unfortunatly, there is little we can do but hope for a regime change before history continues its perfect record.
« on: April 22, 2006, 01:20:52 AM »
Also very busy studying, but I think nate is hitting on the more narrow issues I think are more interesting, although the broader background on the general relationships between religion and government are certainly not irrelevant.
I feel like many people (at least in this country) use the politically untouchable sanctity of religion for credibility in reinforcing only the values they choose to believe in, while disregarding the stance of their religion on views they personally disagree with, or at least are indifferent about. Isn't this a bit underhanded? If you are truly "pro-life" because you subscribe to the teachings of Jesus, (not to pick on Christians in particular) can you really decide that certain people need to die in order to preserve your nation's supremacy? Or can you face your faith about supporting slashed taxes while children down the street from you go hungry? Am I the only one who notices that the politicians who cultivate support from a religious base do not mention religion (or even morality) when it comes to taxing (or rather not taxing) the disposable income of the wealthiest society in the world?
As lala said, Jesus did not advocate avoiding Caesar's taxes. Would he also endorse Caesar in his military invasions? Can you truly use religion as an authority for only those values that fit conveniently in your lavishly wealthy lifestyle? (by human standards that is, unless you prefer not to count *all* humans). Isn't there something in the Bible about casting the first stone, etc?
I have really tried, but I just can't seem to understand the message. I have heard the phrase "What would would Jesus do?". But I don't think I have ever seen anyone who says this actually do what Jesus would do.
Of course I assume all religions have similar incongruities, which is why I believe religion itself is an outdated concept that counters human cooperation. Is there something I am missing here? Is it evil to think about trying another approach for everyone's benefit? Should a single religion dictate whether same-sex couples may marry, whether stem cells should be used to cure disease, whether planes should be crashed into buildings, or what should be taught to children in a public school? Am I going to burn in the center of the earth for asking these questions?
All opinions welcome.
« on: April 21, 2006, 01:03:41 AM »
Oh, and I can't believe I forgot one of the most common exam time psych-outs of all:
11. Tell everyone you're so drained from studying 12 hours non-stop every day since last month (bull of course)
or maybe one of the two alcohol-related variations:
12. Keep telling people you're probably going to hit the bars tonight.
13. Keep attempting to lure groups of people to grab some beers after class.
« on: April 21, 2006, 12:59:41 AM »
What is your exam time game face?
1. Get people talking about what and how they are studying, both to guage the competition and see if you can pick up any tips.
2. Act cool, calm and slightly bored as if everything is perfectly under control and you're just looking forward to the summer, in an attempt to make your classmates nervous.
3. Tell everyone you're definitely going down in flames, thus fishing for ego-boosting sympathy and setting the bar low so you can be pleasantly surprised.
4. Become invisible, open your mouth only to breathe, and slip in and out of the shadows unnoticed.
5. Generously offer to help others and share whatever study aides you found helpful.
6. Act cheerfully optimistic and reassuring, telling each classmate to stop worrying because you know what a sharp law student they are and that they're going to do great.
7. Beg for help
8. Repeatedly exclaim "I don't see what the big deal is, I just don't think that class is so hard!"
8. Tell everyone you're going to fail out of school when you know you really do have the thing in the bag.
9. Tell everyone you've got it in the bag when you know you're really going to fail out of law school.
I know there are some hustlers out there because I have seen my fair share of people literally crying during exams who finished at the top of the class!
« on: April 21, 2006, 12:32:14 AM »
Well nate, I'm starting to think we should have named this thread "Who likes titties?". It would have been a lot less lonely here anyway!
« on: April 21, 2006, 12:26:28 AM »
I think the scholarship possibility is a good point.
Other than that however, if you already KNOW where you are planning to attend (family obligations, desire to stay at home, etc.) I disagree that time spent prepping cannot be time wasted. Italian2L's theory assumes the necessary premise that one's life exclusively consists of drinking and masturbating. This may be the last freedom to travel, see, do, or relax for quite some time. Maybe even work to save up some money. While I certainly think this only applies to a very few limited cases, there are situations where prepping might conceivably not be the only acceptable option. I guess I just like to pick on absolute arguments. But like you said, the possibility of scholarship money is definitely worth thinking about.
Out of curiosity though, do you apply the same logic to law school itself? Personally, I wouldn't trade the precious few drinks or jerk offs I've had for almost anything.
« on: April 20, 2006, 05:16:39 PM »
i honestly don't think it's so cut and dried. i think there is a political aspect to this that can't be swept under a rug. an atty who brings charges against a judge runs some career risk.
The attorney would not have to deal with this judge again. I couldn't possibly imagine a stronger reason for recusal. As far as other judges who he may be friends with, I doubt they would share the same bitterness as the guy who threw the punch. Even if they were bitter about it, it would probably be what the attorney DID ion the first place that made the the judge want to hit him (This could indeed have been a career risk) not the fact that he pressed charges after being violently attacked.
For the sake of argument, assuming the attorney did nothing to warrant the attack, I doubt the other judges would form a mafiosa style gang with retaliation on their minds. This would be dangerous for their own careers, and I don't think you can just assume corruption to that degree.
« on: April 20, 2006, 06:57:04 AM »
Why are you giving him advice about starting 1L year in the United States? I just assumed he already went to school in another country.
And the judge would get hauled into jail, just like any other person that hits someone. No "review board". Procedurally, since the judge is gone and facing battery charges against a party in the proceeding, there would obviously have to be a new trial.
« on: April 19, 2006, 11:56:10 PM »
It's also relevant how much time has passed and whether you are talking about a right of possession or a right of ownership. They are not the same thing.
Note: I am dealing in Lousiana Civil Law which I assume is similar by analogy...
The trouble is that possession carries a presumption of ownership. This means that whoever possesses the thing is always presumed to be the owner in the eyes of the law, and the burden of proving otherwise falls on whomever is challenging ownership.
With a movable (chattel) this can be next to impossible to prove. Not only is it hard to prove, but you are not likely to bring a possessory or petitory (ownership) action in court for a movable. Most just don't have enough value. However even if you did, you would have to rely on witnesses, etc. and YOU would have the burden of proving that the possessor is not the rightful possessor or owner. On top of this you would have a limited time to do it. If you wait too long, the possessor will acquire all rights to the thing. These proceedings are most often to resolve possession or ownership of immovables (real property?), where you can bring certified title into the fight. With the exception of vehicles, movables are not accompanied by a title. So, generally if you have a ring or something that truly is of value you would just get it insured, and hopefully criminal law serves to deter any thieves.
So you see, if someone takes something you are kind of screwed if they don't want to give it back. They now possess it. You could always try your luck with criminal theft charges or a conversion suit in tort, but these also present evidentiary issues of proof.
The possessor's presumption of ownership also has a policy argument supporting it: If you aren't using it anyway they might as well have it! Ok, so this is really more relevant to immovables but the lesson is the same. Keep up with your *&^%! (or get it insured if it would absolutely kill you to lose it)
« on: April 19, 2006, 11:08:38 PM »
By the way just for clarification, I am generally thinking of at least college-educated when I say "educated", I understand this is relative.
Actually, I was trying to say that there are more uneducated people in general, whether religious or not, and that it is a mere accident that Christianity is the majority religion in this country. As a result, the most often-voiced opinions I tend to come across are those of uneducated Christians. I was essentially trying to defuse any link between the two because I am not saying there is one, and I don't want anyone to get the wrong idea. If there is a link, I am certainly not trying to claim one, at least not a causal one.
As far as Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and the like, maybe so, but I was referring more to people I encounter everyday, not so much the media stars. It's difficult to establish an accurate sampling either way and I don't want to make generalizations, but I will say that it appears that those who are most vocal, protesting, etc. often seem to me to be lesser educated. Before I start upsetting some of the educated Christians, this isn't exactly where I wanted to go with this so let me change direction. (This all arose from my attempted disclaimer!)
The real opinions I am interested in are not just the ever-touchy Christian issues of school prayer, evolution, abortion, same-sex marriages, etc. But also things like the original Catholic poster I responded to who was ultimately willing to defer to a judicial decision on same-sex marriages even though his religion forbids it. Can a religion really be piecemeal in that way? Is it not an all-or-nothing belief that requires the existence of only one God? Most would compromise and say of course not. But if that is the case, does it not indicate that religion is ultimately a personal experience and not an almighty one? Shouldn't a true believer feel charged to dispel or convert non-believers? By no means do I mean to limit this to Christianity, though it probably makes the most readily-available example.
I also wonder why certain more popular religious moral beliefs tend to carry more weight than others. Such as why the Christian lobby believes that stem-cell research is murder while simulataneously supporting a war-mongering administration. And whether Muslims, Jews, and Christians really believe that their beliefs will bring peace on earth when it seems that sticking to these beliefs seems to in fact be the biggest barrier to peace on earth.
Also, the religious right, who claim to follow the teachings of Jesus, are always the most opposed to taxation and social services for the needy. One might argue that they make contributions in other ways, such as to the church. Is the church more efficient at allocating resources than a representative government? Perhaps some believe that it is.
I also have never understood how one "selects" the religion of their choice as the answer to the universe's mysteries. Is this not mere chance related to where you live geographically? From my observations it seems that organized religion is merely handed down from one's parents. Surely this correlation is unavoidable even for the staunchest believer.
And how strong is the correlation between morality and religion? Is Pat Robertson morally good? Is George Bush? Is Ghandi? Are Catholic priests? Osama Bin Laden? What do followers believe would happen if they renounced their faith? What would the prophets of the great religions say about the United States if they were here today?
I have many questions like this, but I suppose that's quite enough for now. As you see, this topic can shift broadly to the spiritual, poltical, moral, psychological, legal, historical, etc. So I'll back off a bit until someone nudges it towards a more narrow scope.
Once again, it is not my intention at all to offend or judge. My point of view, though I believe it to be firmly objective, is merely my own.
Pages: 1 2 3  5 6 7 8 9 ... 69