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 - amarain
Pages:  2 3 4 5 6 ... 396
« on: March 10, 2008, 06:43:27 PM »
Wow. I can't say I've "been on" the board, since I haven't been back in years, but as you can see from my profile, I was on this board LONG ago, back in the day of Savannah, buster, Pookie, Merc and all those folk.
And nobody remembers me.
« on: March 10, 2008, 06:24:05 PM »
REALLY old timer here - I'm in the Atlanta area and wondering about teaching LSAT courses. I understand (from other posts) that Blueprint and Testmasters are the highest-paying, and that Kaplan is generally to be avoided.
Anybody with experience in this? Besides having a high LSAT score (obviously), what else are they looking for? What's the training like, and what are the schedules like once you begin teaching?
« on: July 02, 2007, 03:49:18 PM »
Sorry forgot to add my number:
1. Julie, you are still around?? Is there anyone else like you around? Not that there is anyone else like you, of course.
« on: July 02, 2007, 02:35:45 PM »
Holy crap, I cannot believe this thread is still around. It has been how many years??
Is there anyone from the original thread still here??
« on: September 01, 2005, 04:06:28 PM »
I'm liberal, and I find you annoying.
I'm not a liberal, but thanks for sharing. I was dying to know your opinion.
Thanks Vino. I don't see why people are so insistent that we just shut up about it and ignore anything that could have possibly been done beforehand (and presumably learn from the mistakes). See also, September 11, 2001.
But whatever. Have it your way.
« on: September 01, 2005, 03:55:04 PM »
This is exactly why I quit posting on this board for a while. Very few people here actually want to talk about the issue and instead want every other sentence to be 'YOU LIBS' and "you're just saying that because you're ______ < fill in political affiliation >". Hardly anyone seems able to get past the Motive Fallacy to discuss the actual topic at hand.
So...forget it. Just go on believing whatever you want.
« on: September 01, 2005, 03:44:36 PM »
Bush just assumed it wouldn't happen on his watch, so hey, no big deal to cut the funding.
i think this is where i took that tone from
That's a pretty huge leap from a critical tone to saying I think he should be held 100% responsible for everything.
« on: September 01, 2005, 03:39:48 PM »
the guy who managed the levee system said, "It would take $2.5 billion to build a Category 5 protection system, and we're talking about tens of billions in losses, all that lost productivity, and so many lost lives and injuries and personal trauma you'll never get over," Mr. Naomi said. "People will be scarred for life by this event."
i don't think it's proposterous to suggst that spending $2.5 billion to prevent against $20 billion in damage is a prudent course of action.
we live in a risky world, but here are ways to mitigate the risk of catastrophic damage. the threshold for undertaking preventative measures should not be 100% certainty that all damage will be prevented. that's ludicrous. we'd never do anything to protect ourselves. this is why risk management is important. we can rarely completely eliminate risk, but there are plenty of reasonable ways to minimize whatever risks are present; those are the things prudent people do.
the 100% figure came from her wanting to lay the blame solely at bush's feet. she would probably have been pissed if one drop got through.
I never said it was 100% Bush's fault. Where are you getting that from, exactly?
Are you saying instead that it's 0% Bush's fault? Is there no middle ground? Or is he immune from any responsibility, regardless of any mistakes he might make?
As I said before, there's probably nothing that would have completely averted this disaster. But there are some things that could have mitigated it, possibly avoided some
of the death and destruction. And I think that we should look critically at the mistakes that were made and hold those people responsible.
But I forgot, most Bush supporters really aren't big on personal responsibility, especially not for people in the government.
« on: September 01, 2005, 02:55:33 PM »
can you guarantee with 100% accuracy that none of this would have happened had the funding remained the same? hell, they could have been clamoring for more money instead of asking for the original amount, he could have said sorry, and you people would still be bitching b/c looking back, maybe that would have been a solution. you want to blame him so bad for stumping your toe it isn't funny and you can't get past the idea that he is not solely responsibly for this.
And you can't accept that he might possibly have a bit of responsibility for this. You want to absolve him of responsibility for anything (but of course, give him tons of credit for anything he might possibly do right). Where's the personal responsibility? You're the one who can't even discuss the issue without attacking motives instead of the issue ("oh, well you just want to blame him for something").
No, nobody can guarantee that everything would have been fine, but it seems clear that it would have helped at least some. In my mind, it's a pretty huge mistake to cut funding for a project that, as we now know (and knew then as well), was extremely important.
Pages:  2 3 4 5 6 ... 396