Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: ITT we discuss intermediate steps between current situation, AA-free world  (Read 9503 times)

7S

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2647
  • Self-determination.
    • View Profile
Re: ITT we discuss intermediate steps between current situation, AA-free world
« Reply #40 on: September 02, 2007, 04:15:56 PM »
Anyone who can't figure out that the prefix "sometimes I want" (in the original statement now in question) or the expression "kicking out and installing" indicates something more anecdotal than literal, demonstrates reading skills in English well below that which is necessary for participating effectively in commonsensical discussions.


 :D
It is easy to change the language of oppression without changing the sociopolitical situation of its victims.

Lindbergh

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 4358
    • View Profile
Re: ITT we discuss intermediate steps between current situation, AA-free world
« Reply #41 on: September 02, 2007, 06:21:59 PM »
Racially blind admissions would be great if we lived in a racially blind society.

But wait! X would be great if Y? But we have not-Y? Doesn't mean we have not-X! I note your faulty contra-positive. :) Racially blind admissions might be great even despite the fact that we live in a racially blind society (which, in itself, is an assumption I might address).

Ah, I get ya. I don't mean to nit-pick. And with a subject such as the law, which is so intrinsically (is that redundant) related to further societal structures, restrictions, and the establishment and protection of rights and privileges, there's bound to be some necessary tinkering if we're going to have anything functional in the future. I mean, it's not like we're talking about making admissions to cheerleading camp more fair on the basis of race or something. The law actually will have bearing on each participant's opportunity to impact his own group and secure their rights in the future.

Then again he or she could just learn, "VEE eye cee tee OH arr wye yeah THAT'S the tribal VIC t'ry cry! Rah rah."

Not having Y, but having X creates an unfair advantage to some and disadvantage to others.

I think you are dead on @ the bolded.



So the purpose of AA is to give an unfair advantage to urms to offset a potential unfair disadvantage?

Rupert Murdoch, is that you?


Is this your way of avoiding the question?

I don't think there's anything terribly wrong with your apparent rationale -- and I think this is clearly the operating rationale for most supporters, whether or not they acknowledge it -- a little discrimination here to help offset what they perceive as greater discrimination down the road.

The problem is that the little discrimination here may actually increase discrimination down the road.

No, it's my way saying that you're trying to twist my statement to fit your sheepish conservative goals.

Okay, is this your way of avoiding the question?  Because you still haven't answered it.

Since when are the search for truth and fairness exclusively conservative goals?  Oh, wait, maybe they are -- I'm sure you know better than I do. ;)

Lindbergh

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 4358
    • View Profile
Re: ITT we discuss intermediate steps between current situation, AA-free world
« Reply #42 on: September 02, 2007, 06:24:11 PM »
By "kicking out" and "installing", do you plan on circumventing the democratic process?  Because that's the only way that would happen.

"Kicking out and installing" could simply mean impeaching and confirming a new leader.

And yet, when this was attempted against clinton, lefties screamed about how this was a clear abrogation of the democratic process.

Maybe you guys could just try winning presidential elections for a change? 

Lindbergh

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 4358
    • View Profile
Re: ITT we discuss intermediate steps between current situation, AA-free world
« Reply #43 on: September 02, 2007, 06:25:45 PM »
Anyone who can't figure out that the prefix "sometimes I want" (in the original statement now in question) or the expression "kicking out and installing" indicates something more anecdotal than literal, demonstrates reading skills in English well below that which is necessary for participating effectively in commonsensical discussions.

I'm sorry, but your writing is atrocious.  Could you rephrase this in a proper sentence?  Thanks!   :)

P.S.:  By "anecdotal", do you mean figurative?

Lindbergh

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 4358
    • View Profile
Re: ITT we discuss intermediate steps between current situation, AA-free world
« Reply #44 on: September 02, 2007, 06:26:20 PM »
Anyone who can't figure out that the prefix "sometimes I want" (in the original statement now in question) or the expression "kicking out and installing" indicates something more anecdotal than literal, demonstrates reading skills in English well below that which is necessary for participating effectively in commonsensical discussions.


 :D

 ;D

7S

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2647
  • Self-determination.
    • View Profile
Re: ITT we discuss intermediate steps between current situation, AA-free world
« Reply #45 on: September 03, 2007, 02:00:58 AM »
By "kicking out" and "installing", do you plan on circumventing the democratic process?  Because that's the only way that would happen.

"Kicking out and installing" could simply mean impeaching and confirming a new leader.

And yet, when this was attempted against clinton, lefties screamed about how this was a clear abrogation of the democratic process.

Maybe you guys could just try winning presidential elections for a change? 

whose a lefty? I just thought it was very petty for Republicans to investigate a politician for extra-marital affairs. I also thought it was hypocritical because many of them were  sleeping around on their wives as well, and had they been asked under oath probably would have lied too.

Yet, you have a prez who lied to get us into a war, who authorized illegal wire taps on Americans and who allowed corporate friends to profit at the expense of soldiers by way of Halliburton-all of this and no outrage, no talk of impeachment. Just mindless defense by sheepish conservatives you constantly regurgitate  "Well, Clinton had an affair..."

get off of it.
It is easy to change the language of oppression without changing the sociopolitical situation of its victims.

7S

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2647
  • Self-determination.
    • View Profile
Re: ITT we discuss intermediate steps between current situation, AA-free world
« Reply #46 on: September 03, 2007, 02:04:00 AM »
Racially blind admissions would be great if we lived in a racially blind society.

But wait! X would be great if Y? But we have not-Y? Doesn't mean we have not-X! I note your faulty contra-positive. :) Racially blind admissions might be great even despite the fact that we live in a racially blind society (which, in itself, is an assumption I might address).

Ah, I get ya. I don't mean to nit-pick. And with a subject such as the law, which is so intrinsically (is that redundant) related to further societal structures, restrictions, and the establishment and protection of rights and privileges, there's bound to be some necessary tinkering if we're going to have anything functional in the future. I mean, it's not like we're talking about making admissions to cheerleading camp more fair on the basis of race or something. The law actually will have bearing on each participant's opportunity to impact his own group and secure their rights in the future.

Then again he or she could just learn, "VEE eye cee tee OH arr wye yeah THAT'S the tribal VIC t'ry cry! Rah rah."

Not having Y, but having X creates an unfair advantage to some and disadvantage to others.

I think you are dead on @ the bolded.



So the purpose of AA is to give an unfair advantage to urms to offset a potential unfair disadvantage?

Rupert Murdoch, is that you?


Is this your way of avoiding the question?

I don't think there's anything terribly wrong with your apparent rationale -- and I think this is clearly the operating rationale for most supporters, whether or not they acknowledge it -- a little discrimination here to help offset what they perceive as greater discrimination down the road.

The problem is that the little discrimination here may actually increase discrimination down the road.

No, it's my way saying that you're trying to twist my statement to fit your sheepish conservative goals.

Okay, is this your way of avoiding the question?  Because you still haven't answered it.

Since when are the search for truth and fairness exclusively conservative goals?  Oh, wait, maybe they are -- I'm sure you know better than I do. ;)

Now, you're getting it.
It is easy to change the language of oppression without changing the sociopolitical situation of its victims.

Lindbergh

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 4358
    • View Profile
Re: ITT we discuss intermediate steps between current situation, AA-free world
« Reply #47 on: September 03, 2007, 02:27:22 AM »
By "kicking out" and "installing", do you plan on circumventing the democratic process?  Because that's the only way that would happen.

"Kicking out and installing" could simply mean impeaching and confirming a new leader.

And yet, when this was attempted against clinton, lefties screamed about how this was a clear abrogation of the democratic process.

Maybe you guys could just try winning presidential elections for a change? 

whose a lefty?

You're clearly a lefty.  You didn't realize?


I just thought it was very petty for Republicans to investigate a politician for extra-marital affairs.

Well, there was also that sexual harrassment thing that he eventually paid out to settle, along with taking money from Red China, raping women while governor, and a number of other corruption scandals.  But he was certainly lucky that he only got impeached for the "affair."


I also thought it was hypocritical because many of them were sleeping around on their wives as well, and had they been asked under oath probably would have lied too.

Well, if they had been sexually harrassing employees by exposing themselves, and they were under oath as part of that, then they should also have been impeached. 


Yet, you have a prez who lied to get us into a war

Link?  Clinton also thought/claimed Hussein had WMD's, and used this to justify attacks on Iraq.  Was he also lying?  Was Tony Blair, and most other nations? Do you ever actually try to learn and think stuff through on your own, or do you just swallow the lefty talking points whole?


who authorized illegal wire taps on Americans

Well, he authorized agencies to keep listening to foreign terror suspects when they called Americans.  But you're right, preventing future attacks doesn't justify any flexibility in this area whatsoever.  Maybe tell Abe Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, and FDR that while you're at it.  They bent civil liberties far more than Bush has done, with less justification. 


and who allowed corporate friends to profit at the expense of soldiers by way of Halliburton

Halliburton was the only company that could do the work required, and they certainly benefitted the soldiers more than they hurt them.  What corporate friends are you referring to?  Was Clinton benefitting corporate friends when he also awarded Halliburton no-bid contracts?


-all of this and no outrage, no talk of impeachment.

I don't know where you've been, but I've heard tons of idiot libs scream about these supposed "offenses" and cry for impeachment for years.


Just mindless defense by sheepish conservatives you constantly regurgitate  "Well, Clinton had an affair..."

Sheepish?  Last time I checked, it was libs like you who blindly repeated false statements about everything, without even bothering to check if they're accurate.  (See:  your entire post above.)

If Clinton had done his job instead of trying to pork portly interns, we could've avoided 9/11 and had an easier time removing Hussein in Iraq.  Also, maybe China wouldn't have all our nuclear secrets.  Clinton's sexual stupidity was the least of his problems.  Don't be a fucktard.


get off of it.

How about you get off of regurgitating moronic leftist nonsense like the above, unless you want people to recognize you're a leftist moron? 

But my broader point, of course, is simply that the left screamed when Clinton was impeached.  Do you deny this, having just repeated that mindless screaming for no reason whatsoever?

Lindbergh

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 4358
    • View Profile
Re: ITT we discuss intermediate steps between current situation, AA-free world
« Reply #48 on: September 03, 2007, 02:32:59 AM »
Racially blind admissions would be great if we lived in a racially blind society.

But wait! X would be great if Y? But we have not-Y? Doesn't mean we have not-X! I note your faulty contra-positive. :) Racially blind admissions might be great even despite the fact that we live in a racially blind society (which, in itself, is an assumption I might address).

Ah, I get ya. I don't mean to nit-pick. And with a subject such as the law, which is so intrinsically (is that redundant) related to further societal structures, restrictions, and the establishment and protection of rights and privileges, there's bound to be some necessary tinkering if we're going to have anything functional in the future. I mean, it's not like we're talking about making admissions to cheerleading camp more fair on the basis of race or something. The law actually will have bearing on each participant's opportunity to impact his own group and secure their rights in the future.

Then again he or she could just learn, "VEE eye cee tee OH arr wye yeah THAT'S the tribal VIC t'ry cry! Rah rah."

Not having Y, but having X creates an unfair advantage to some and disadvantage to others.

I think you are dead on @ the bolded.



So the purpose of AA is to give an unfair advantage to urms to offset a potential unfair disadvantage?

Rupert Murdoch, is that you?


Is this your way of avoiding the question?

I don't think there's anything terribly wrong with your apparent rationale -- and I think this is clearly the operating rationale for most supporters, whether or not they acknowledge it -- a little discrimination here to help offset what they perceive as greater discrimination down the road.

The problem is that the little discrimination here may actually increase discrimination down the road.

No, it's my way saying that you're trying to twist my statement to fit your sheepish conservative goals.

Okay, is this your way of avoiding the question?  Because you still haven't answered it.

Since when are the search for truth and fairness exclusively conservative goals?  Oh, wait, maybe they are -- I'm sure you know better than I do. ;)

Now, you're getting it.

Okay, so you agree the search for truth and fairness are exclusively conservative goals?  At least now we're gettin somewhere!   :D

Maybe there's hope for you yet.

7S

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2647
  • Self-determination.
    • View Profile
Re: ITT we discuss intermediate steps between current situation, AA-free world
« Reply #49 on: September 03, 2007, 02:38:15 AM »
Racially blind admissions would be great if we lived in a racially blind society.

But wait! X would be great if Y? But we have not-Y? Doesn't mean we have not-X! I note your faulty contra-positive. :) Racially blind admissions might be great even despite the fact that we live in a racially blind society (which, in itself, is an assumption I might address).

Ah, I get ya. I don't mean to nit-pick. And with a subject such as the law, which is so intrinsically (is that redundant) related to further societal structures, restrictions, and the establishment and protection of rights and privileges, there's bound to be some necessary tinkering if we're going to have anything functional in the future. I mean, it's not like we're talking about making admissions to cheerleading camp more fair on the basis of race or something. The law actually will have bearing on each participant's opportunity to impact his own group and secure their rights in the future.

Then again he or she could just learn, "VEE eye cee tee OH arr wye yeah THAT'S the tribal VIC t'ry cry! Rah rah."

Not having Y, but having X creates an unfair advantage to some and disadvantage to others.

I think you are dead on @ the bolded.



So the purpose of AA is to give an unfair advantage to urms to offset a potential unfair disadvantage?

Rupert Murdoch, is that you?


Is this your way of avoiding the question?

I don't think there's anything terribly wrong with your apparent rationale -- and I think this is clearly the operating rationale for most supporters, whether or not they acknowledge it -- a little discrimination here to help offset what they perceive as greater discrimination down the road.

The problem is that the little discrimination here may actually increase discrimination down the road.

No, it's my way saying that you're trying to twist my statement to fit your sheepish conservative goals.

Okay, is this your way of avoiding the question?  Because you still haven't answered it.

Since when are the search for truth and fairness exclusively conservative goals?  Oh, wait, maybe they are -- I'm sure you know better than I do. ;)

Now, you're getting it.

Okay, so you agree the search for truth and fairness are exclusively conservative goals?  At least now we're gettin somewhere!   :D

Maybe there's hope for you yet.

yeah that's it.  ::)

[img width= height=]http://www.borderleicester.com/images/sheep.jpg[/img]
It is easy to change the language of oppression without changing the sociopolitical situation of its victims.