What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
$52 and Up—Airlines Slash Fares On Peak Holiday Flights. view!
travelzoo.com - This year, waiting until the last minute is NOT the best strategy. See why.
147 Comments
- ScornForSega, on 10/12/2007, -6/+53This is what happens when you favor loyalty over competency.
- chewood, on 10/12/2007, -9/+54Who but the Bush/Cheney/Rice/Gonzales White House would put Regent Law School grads into so many positions.
This is a very dark period for us Americans and this is another example of the terrible leadership we have had from Bush. - jbaez, on 10/12/2007, -7/+37i don't care what they say about Maher, this is a man who isn't afraid to speak the truth. Yea sometimes he can be a little rough but if someone doesn't do it who will. Thats the problem with this country we are so sheltered that when SMART people like him make comments like this we are like how dare he. When in fact he has a point. I think this sheltering and political correctness is going to be the downfall of the US. We need to take things as they are. We need Put our differences and political parties aside and solve these problems before its too late if it already isn't.
- Independentsam, on 10/12/2007, -7/+33Insufficient words to express that Goodling oversaw all Federal Attorneys, had no actual experience and graduated from Pat Robertson's law school. At first I could not believe it. Subsequent hours verified this is a fact and not a Maher joke. I am against the war, but believe the Democrats are insane to threaten to withhold funds that will make troops safer. As President Bush has the right to veto. That being said, how could 33 year old Monica Goodling ascend to to the number three position in the United States Justice Department with her background? Incredulity aside, if Maher's statement that 150 graduates of Robertson's law school are currently employed by the Bush Administration is true (did not research that one), how can one not worry about the State of the Union. Citizens have to get past the traditional roles of Republican vrs. Democrat and get to solutions. I truly fear for my grandson's future. Peace, Sam
- Marlz, on 10/12/2007, -7/+30He said 150 graduates working in the bush administration not the DOJ.
And as for your defense of the ranking of the school, yes, ranking schools may not be entirely fair, but this one was ranked dead last. It has also been in the news for its students having horrendous passing rates for the bar exam. - macaca, on 10/12/2007, -5/+23who the hell are u?....did u graduate from Regent Law school?
- ColonelJessup, on 10/12/2007, -9/+27Kudos to Maher for speaking the truth here. Christian fanatics and bible bangers scare the crap out of me. I had no idea how powerful the religious right actually was.
- KiwiHopeful, on 10/12/2007, -6/+21"Just because people go to Regent doesn't make them Pat Robertson working in the DOJ. Muslims and Jews go there it a nice University."
Was that your application essay?
If so, congratulations! You meet Regent's high standards for academic skills, including punctuation and grammar. Your acceptance letter is in the mail! - Asdfglpwglion, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17150 of 113,000 is 0.13% not 0.0013%
- spockster, on 10/12/2007, -6/+18Right on. The false sense of Christian persecution is flabbergasting, especially in light of the simple fact that the Christian right is the most politically connected, richest interest block IN THE COUNTRY.
War on Christians? The problem is, they (these people calling themselves Christians) construe any assertion that contradicts their vision of reality and human life as "an attack," even as they display a shocking lack of irony by making offensive bigoted remarks about everyone who doesn't toe the Kool-Aid line.
PS - I'm not referring to moderate Christians, or even the majority of Christians; I'm referring specifically to the fundamentalist block of politically minded people who get away with all manner of BS by calling what they do and think "Christianity." - VitriolAndAngst, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14>> If you want to get the full picture of "why this should concern you." Just google "PNAC" -- the Project of a New American Century. The NeoCons want to have one powerful government over all -- for peace or profit, whichever comes first. After you read about their mission statement, remember that these are the people leading the parade. They have lots of ties to Moonies as well as Evangelicals.
OK, to many of you, that is old news. Stay with me...
But to really understand how cynical they are, google "Leo Strauss." Most of these people are students of Strauss and in general can be called "Straussians." The Religious Right is merely convenient fools for them - -and yet, somehow these people seem to know it. You've got people who want power, and people who want money, and people dreaming of Armageddon -- all using each other to further their own goals, no matter what means.
And just like China's revolution -- they look at the smart people as the "ones to get rid of." And just like the fascists, they do everything to break up unions. The whole point of "free trade" is to find a cheaper worker -- not create a valuable standard of living for the people in our country or any other country. So, to them, US automakers making gas-guzzling autos, and going broke, is just a necessary casualty to get rid of the Auto Unions. Besides, most of these US manufacturers have invested in the foreign companies -- the owners aren't hurting.
But let's get back to Monica; There are a lot of details coming out from all over on the Prosecutor firings; http://1boringoldman.com/
Monica Goodling, who graduated from Pat Robertson's law school, who oversaw the firings, has a nice spread sheet that grades people higher if the were with the "Federalists Society" -- another cabal of Bible Thumping Wackos -- but rich, Bible Thumping Wackos.
A good portion of the Judges and Prosecutors in this country are members of the Federalists Society.
That these evangelical leaders, can team up with Neo Nazis, Moonies, and BushCo -- and the top preacher recently had to leave in shame for enjoying Gay Prostitutes AND Meth. It paints a picture of a very cynical and organized group that just uses religion, and promotes extremism for its own ends. If you don't believe me on that first sentence, just google; "White House prayer breakfast." A nice UN meeting of thugs.
Remember, Iran/Contra was the Bush group siding with the Mullahs -- and giving them weapons. Saddam couldn't remain in power without a dangerous Iran threatening him. Neither can the kinds in Saudi Arabia. And Pakistan needs India to fight over useless land in Cashmere. BushCo now has Al Qaeda. If they were really enemies, why did Tom Dashel and Dan Rather get the Anthrax?
Just read up on the Federalists Society -- an anti-constitutional group that wants to take us back to the dark ages. This is no Internet Rumor, it is a Billionaires club. As dedicated as any wahabbyist.
Even with all this evidence coming out -- it is still unlikely that any real repercussions will be meted out on BushCo loyalists -- they own the machine. So far the Democrats have been pursuing the cover-ups, and getting more and more justification to subpoena -- a good strategy because there is too much to cover up.
Unfortunately, I don't think many people understand what the goals are, nor how extensive this conspiracy is. The Fundies support crooks like Pat Robertson. And that group supports NeoCons -- just like the Moonies (who are backed by North Korea). And the NeoCons are in many countries (just google; "sex crime") like Berlesconi in Italy (source of Yellow-cake papers), Blair in England, a top candidate in France, the New Mexican president who won with a NeoCon rigged vote, the leader of Australia, the Likud in Israel, and the Ukrainian separatists (Russian-Israelis mob) -- just to name a few. And the leaders of those groups, like Carlysle Group and the banking consortium are followers of Strauss (not a hard sell; leaders who sacrifice others and become more powerful an misunderstood heroes -- tailor made philosophy for Psychopaths and the greedy). And Haliburton is moving to Dubai -- just like their parent company, Carlylse Group chaired by Pappy Bush. And they bank with BCCI -- the same bank that is implicated in terrorism, and was caught laundering drug money and was involved in the S&L crisis. Google; "Senate investigates BCCI" -- so no, the CIA shipping drugs into the US is not a "theory" -- it is documented in the Senate.
Quit shying away from "Conspiracy Theory." The rich and the powerful have always been Conspiring for wealth and power. The only difference is that we have an Internet now -- and most Americans are more ignorant. - BdON003, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14Dugg. Not because I think Maher should be fired, but because this info should be read by everyone.
- doggo, on 10/12/2007, -7/+16"The separation of church and state is an important legal and political principle derived from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . ." The phrase separation of church and state was popularized by Thomas Jefferson in an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists. The phrase itself does not appear in any founding American document, but it has been quoted in opinions by the United States Supreme Court."
Nobody's saying you shouldn't be allowed to participate in government... provided you can keep your religious beliefs separate from policy. And the issue here is not that Regent "Law School" is affiliated with a religious institution, the point is it's a 4th tier law school. It's not considered to be academically competitive.
Consider that U.S. Attorneys have gone to places like Harvard Law School and other high-ranking schools. To have someone who went to Regent, and has no experience, is more than absurb. - sonaro, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14No. Blackolive is obviously affiliated with CrooksAndLiars and he doesn't want a 'nobody' submitting stories to Digg since the success of stories depends on the amount of friends you have.
The concept can actually be used as a weapon against a competitor. - spockster, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12All law schools represent a higher level of distinction than purely undergraduate institutions. Plenty of competent, even elite, legal thinkers come from lower-tier schools. But it is absurd to suggest that lower tier schools are on parity with highly ranked schools just because of the interests underlying the ranking system. You can look at the much-hated rankings yourself: people with higher undergrad gpas and LSAT scores tend to go to better ranked schools. It might even have nothing to do with the tier 1 schools themselves. These might be more desirable place to hire from because, following the achievement indicator theory of education, they tend to harbor better employees for reasons not causally linked to the law schools' particular characteristics.
In short: smart people generally go to higher ranked schools (assuming that "smartness" positively tracks grades and LSAT scores). Maybe the rankings are all smoke and mirrors, etc. But to totally render them meaningless, you also have to show that LSAT and gpa are completely hollow indicators as well. That may be, but good luck showing these statistics are also the midnight children of corporate interests. - doggo, on 10/12/2007, -7/+15Y'know what makes me want to puke? Self-righteous God freaks.
The comparison to Imus is ridiculous. Imus used a racially charged insult on a bunch of female athletes, basically calling them a bunch of unkempt whores, though "nappy headed" has more connotations than unkempt. Maher was saying it's ridiculous that someone who went to a inferior law school, and lacks experience, is posted to such a high position in government. But you may have missed that in your frenzy of victimhood.
And how ironic that you cry anti-Christian, since the Christian right are the biggest hate mongers on the planet. Poor babies. - buildbyflying, on 10/12/2007, -8/+16while I understand that rankings are subjective, there's certainly a difference between tier one and ... well, tier four.
That's like ignoring the difference between a restaurant with a sanitation grade of A and one with a grade of D.
Hepatitis anyone? Hey and what about that pesky separation of church and state? - gip7478, on 10/12/2007, -8/+15"civility in politics"
What a joke, this President has made civility impossible. This administration is ruining the nation, we are about one step away from some South American banana republic.
When exactly was this golden time of civility???? YOU are IGNORANT and should read some history. The real crime is the war the so called "Christians" are waging against intellectual discussion and rational thought. - spockster, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10No. There is just a big audience of people who don't like Bush & Friends.
Calling this "political suppression" after making vague allusions to a market place of ideas is just plain incoherent. - EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10@independentsam: "I am against the war, but believe the Democrats are insane to threaten to withhold funds that will make troops safer. As President Bush has the right to veto."
BTW, I dugg you up, except for that comment, which is pure *****. The Democrats just voted to fully fund the troops through the end of the occupation in 2008. As a group, they voted to grant the requested funds, all of it, which the President will soon veto because he doesn't like being told he has to end this ***** war before he leaves office.
If anyone is withholding funds, it is the person who vetoes that bill. - BdON003, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11@ lastvisibledog
If you listen to Maher's clip, you'll see he is more attacking the Bush administration, albeit indirectly. Not for their beliefs, but for putting incompetent people in office. - Plinkotic, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Libruls r teh TRUE PROBLEM!!1 Because they've had control for so long. Yup.
usercc: I'll concede Michael Moore, Sean Penn, Cindy Sheehan and Charlie Sheen need to be executed publicly, if you'll concede that Glenn Beck, Monster Malkin, Andrew Coulter, Bill O Reilly and John Gibson need to be launched into the ***** sun.
Also, I'll throw in Al Franken if you'll add Dennis Miller. - surfviper, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Let's be clear. Maher is no intellectual. He can't stay on topic or in focus. He's a random association of quasi-intellectual burps. He usually undercuts anything worthwhile he seems to be talking about a minute after it comes up. It's a sad statement on the average intellect if he is considered an intellectual. Same thing, almost exactly, with Dennis Miller. Out of the three of them, Jon Stewart is the closet thing to worthwhile in political humor on the tube.
- david76, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11@tomthewombat
Not that I'm a Kerry lover, but I think the problem is his nuanced opinions were a little too complicated for small-minded people such as yourself. - pear1jamten, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8and i thought it couldnt get any worse......
- thespiff, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8No need to apologize, you did go front page...
- LastVisibleDog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5spockster: "How are the rankings not based on observation?"
THINK! How does one "observe" a rating? What experiment can be used to validate a rating? Ratings are subjective - do you know what subjective means? A rating is someone's opinion - what makes opinion (or ratings) valuable is confidence in the source of the opinion (ratings). An opinion can be based on empirical data but the opinion is created from extrapolation. US News takes empirical data and applies speical saurce (not empirical) and out comes their ratings.
spockster: "Unless you want to make the term meaningless"
…and you seem to be an expert on trying to make a term meaningless (i.e. The Roman's marginalized the Christians)
spockster: "you can't suggest that the only way to measure incoming law students is to stair at the law school and someho"w divine their numbers."
Divining is an option but intellectual extrapolation (special sause) is likely more reliable - nevertheless, it ain't empirical.
spockster: "The word also refers to conclusions drawn from experience"
Do you think the Academy Awards are empirical? Do you think American Idol is empirical?
spockster: "which is exactly how the rankings are compiled: through a combination of questionnaires (which aggregate the experience of legal professions), reporting entrant data, and other factors (like bar passage rate) US News creates the ranking. “
Do some research – start here: “A ranking system that exemplifies the shortcomings of all ‘by the numbers’ schemes is the one produced annually by U.S. News & World Report...the U.S. News rankings purport to be derived from mathematical formulae based on data common to all law schools. The “weights” attached to the variables are arbitrary and reflect only the view of the magazine’s editors. For example, according to the magazine, 40 percent of the rankings is based on each school’s “reputation.” The reputation ranking is derived from a survey of a modest number of legal academics, lawyers, and judges across the country which asks them to rate comparatively all ABA-approved law schools. Reputation is an important factor in choosing a school, but schools with excellent reputations within their communities, states, or regions may not be well known in other parts of the country. None of us has adequate knowledge about more than a tiny handful of law schools so as to permit us, with confidence, to compare them with each other.” -LSAC
The ratings are based on arbitrary weights that are not empirical. The views of the magazine’s editors are not empirical. Reputation is not empirical. Opinion is not empirical. There is no substance to your argument. - Maarek, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9It is not being a bigot to say that someone with little experience and a degree from a tier 4 (aka: *****) college should not be a top DOJ official.
To be a bigot would be to say that anyone from a evangelical law school should be denied the position regardless of experience. I haven't seen anyone say that yet. All I've seen is people point out how often something like this happens and then wonder out loud if perhaps it is because of all of these inexperienced people in high positions that things are going so poorly. I don't really wonder much because I figure it is pretty much going according to their plan.
Part of me is thinking that maybe there should be a moratorium on Christians claiming bigotry and oppression until they no longer represent almost half of the world's population. Oh and before you get out your label gun, I went to an evangelical bible college to train for the ministry, then became a minister, and then left the ministry so I'm quite aware of both sides of this fence. - Desslok, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10This is the single stupidest ***** thing I've heard in months.
- johnny23, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9DON'T apologize to that *****. This is a community website where anybody can submit anything. You keep up the good work maxwellpower.
- spockster, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6jetboatfishing:
Rankings do count in the real world. It makes a huge difference in terms of post-grad recruiting and so on. That's not to say they aren't a ridiculous measure of an institution's worth. But it's not as simple as saying "well, rankings are motivating by profit, so they can't mean anything."
In other words, as employers which law schools they would prefer hiring from. Many in local markets will prefer tier 3 or tier 4 schools because, as I suggested twice now, they produce good legal thinkers too. But that alone doesn't make it a travesty of reason, or bigotry, or whatever, to say that higher ranked schools have more to offer. Generally, higher ranked schools have more prestigious faculty. That's not to say that lower ranked schools don't either. It's just not as simple as "rankings are meaningless." When it comes to the kind of education you're getting, it's not like undergraduate degrees, where it realistically doesn't matter if you attend a state school or a private institution. Law schools are different. Think about it: would you want your doctor to have attended a "tier 4" medical school? No, you wouldn't. It's not elitist to say that some schools are better than others, and that flawed rankings don't mean we can't decided what schools are better or worse. - LastVisibleDog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4spockster: "Empirical refers to numbers and measurement, not their progeny."
No, empirical does not refer to numbers and measurement. Empirical refers to information gain by observation and experimentation. Reading about a subject is not empirical or an "empirical measure" as you claimed...Not to mention US News and World Report's ratings are not at any level empirical - they are subjective qualitative opinion.
"Unless you think I should conduct my own straw poll or something to determine the ranking of hundreds of US law schools."
Would a straw poll be an empirical measure for basing the rating of a law school? I don't really care what you do but ratings are not empirical - direct observation or experimentation are not used to create the rating (although empirical evidence can be used in the creation of subjective opinions) - ratings are subjective qualitative opinion - the school does not have a giant number four superimposed over the campus. Claiming any ratings are empirical demonstrates ignorance. You read something in a magazine (or more likely you are just parroting what Bill Maher said) and then claimed you used empirical measures to support your statement - you are wrong on more then one level.
"My command of the English language is self-evident"
I totally agree
"Dinesh D'Souza is a conservative thinker who apparently says the hijackers are "brave." I didn't say they were brave. I said Maher agreed with D'Souza that they were brave. These are different statements."
Seems all you are doing is avoiding the question. Spin all you want - sponsors stopped advertising on Maher's show and the show started losing money. Since you claim to have a degree in ECON, you should understand this basic economic principle. BTW: Do you think the terrorists were brave? I would ask the same question of Dinesh (even if he was banging Ann Coulter). You have a very oversimplified view of political philosophies - you are implying that if one is a conservative, one MUST agree with everything anybody else that is conservative may say. BTW: you have no idea as to my political views - you assume. My point is America was not big on the "brave terrorist" perspective and that is why Maher lost his job – the free market made it so. Dinesh did not have a show to lose - but he is no longer banging Ann Coulter....coincidence? - Lou3000, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6As for Maher's points, he isn't necessarily correct in saying that 4th tier grads don't belong in government. His point should have been, 150 graduates from the same school don't belong in government, and that Regent grads should be screened with extra scrutiny because there is no place for a religious bias in government.
However, the law school rankings are very peculiar, and contain a lot of bias. For example, if you look at LSAT scores alone, people who scored between 150-157 could go to Regent (Pat Robertson's School) or Mercer, a top 100 school. Also, look at the individual categories, a lot of lower tier schools dominate individual fields. There are fourth tier schools that beat out the best in the country in legal writing. But, what hurts Regent is that they take 50% of the applicants and have a poor bar passage rate.
Also, a lot of going to Harvard, Yale, etc. is getting into those schools. It is very hard to fail out of a top tier law school.
I like Bill Maher a lot, but one of the last great biases in American society is the elite institution bias. Writing Harvard or Yale on your resume has a lot of weight, but not a lot of reason behind it. A lot of people go to these schools because of grades, but there are also those who went because of who their parents are (Bush) or how much money they have (Bush). It isn't that it can't be overcome, but it isn't easy.
And no I don't go to Regent. - pagit, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Dugg for "this country isn't being run by elites, but by hayseeds"
- kazoolist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5This is ridiculous. Putting in 150 Regent grads in a departement of fore than 100,000 is hardly a "transformation."
Furthermore, a person's choice of graduate school doesn't directly corespond to their abilities. Bush is a Yale and Harvard grad, and I'm sure those ripping to into Regent don't find him to be a shining example of competence.
Finally, "fourth tier" doesn't indicate "crap". Regent graduates are apparently trained well enough to pass the Bar, and the American Bar Association thinks well enough of Regent that it's law program is accredited. Couple this with the fact that it's very likely many of Regent's student likely could have gone to a higher ranked school but instead choose to go to a school more in line with a Biblical worldview, and the likely quality of a Regent grad grows even more. - EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10@lastvisibledog,
So you're saying that because Regent has "a good quality of life," it produces better lawyers? I always thought it was the studying, testing, and teaching and not the "social life" that made better lawyers...
And I think the evidence that the output of this school is ***** is the output of the school. From the behavior of its graduates, I'd conclude that they teach lawyers that the law is there to be broken -- and how to get away with it.
In fact, I'd call on Regent to revoke the diplomas of any graduates caught in basic legal "no nos" like obstruction of justice and perjury or they risk having quality of life and conservatism be their only selling point. - LastVisibleDog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4 spockster: "I'm not going to quibble with you about "marginalize."
You say quibble - I say you don't understand the meaning of the word...so be it.
spockster: "If you want a better example consider Dick Cheney's popularity with the American public."
Cheney is popular with the American people - that's news to me.
spockster: "The word encompasses what Romans did to Christians."
Really - killing Christians is the same as marginalizing Christians??? So the Nazis marginalized 6 million Jews (I guess holocaust is such an overheated term). I think I am starting to understand your command of the English language - Charles Manson's gang marginalized Sharon Tate. Your command of the English language is indeed self-evident.
spockster: "In fact you did reference "markets" and "societies" in the original post"
Yes - and then you made an unsupported "mine is bigger" comment about knowledge of economics. I made no direct comment about economics other than lefties like you don't seem to be big fans of the free market (the free market is the reason Maher lost his ABC show but you are desperately trying to find something or somebody else to blame). What direct connection is there between the word "societies" and "economics?"
spockster: "I replied to...which prompted my "mine is bigger" response. Sorry, but it's fair."
That remains to be seen - so far you have no present any knowledge of economics whatsoever.
spockster: "You are the one throwing around terms like "leftie" in a clear allusion to some kind of social and economic order you oppose."
Lefty refers to political ideology. I have not claimed to oppose anything Mr Delusional.
spockster: "In fact, you posited the market had removed Maher from ABC, so yes, you did mention the market."
Yes I did. But that was after your unsupported "mine's bigger" comment. But lets stay with this subject - you said you did not what to embarrass me with you superior economic knowledge and your statement above is the context. Ok. So with your superior knowledge of economics you don't believe the free market is the reason Maher lost his job? Show us your superior knowledge economics and explain in economic terms why my position is incorrect.
spockster: "You think that the free market isn't 'a product of regulation?"
Now you are just rambling. Influenced, sure – a product, no.
spockster: "What happens when a contract is broken? Where do you go to get it enforced? A court. What is a court? Who makes the laws that govern contract disputes? The common law, but also statutory law. Every operation in the "free" market is in fact backed by the coercive power of the state, because without that power it would be impossible to enforce any of the agreements reached by market agents."
And what the heck does that have to do with anything? I thought you had superior knowledge of economics - this is pointless rambling vaguely related to law. I have no idea what this has to do with Maher losing his job because of the free market. Are you claiming the courts are the reason Maher lost his job or are you claiming Maher should have gone to the courts to get his job back? Are you claiming the "state" has something to do with Maher losing his job? As I said, you are rambling about law, not economics. A business that is losing money can not remain in business for long - that is why Maher lost his job - there was no legal/contractual issues (except maybe on the periphery).
spockster: "Unless you are a law school dean, or otherwise work in the legal profession, pointing to the ABA's stance on rankings doesn't really mean much. Rankings matter in the profession. Why do you think the CJ went to HARVARD?"
You are now claiming the opinion of US News and World Report holds more weight than the ABA (and two other law associations)- yeah, right. What group actually accredits law schools - that would be the ABA? George Bush also graduated form Harvard - so clearly that alone is all you need to judge somebody.
spockster: "All you know about me is that Maher said something I apparently agree with."
I never claimed you agreed - I asked if you did and you refused to answer
spockster: "That doesn't justify the term "Leftie.""
All I can say is you talk like a leftie - maybe I am wrong - thus is the world of Internet debates.
spockster: "II don't know if the DOJ scandal is smoke without a fire, or what, but it is troubling."
At this point it is not a scandal - maybe a potential scandal but so far nobody can find a law that was actually broken - it just looked bad - looking bad is not all that is needed for a scandal - unless you are a leftie (with a Republican president) or a rightie (with a Democrat president). That is why I think you are leftie. It is not that complicated.
spockster: "PS - "sarcasm" is your new vocab word. Of course I didn't bow to your absurd screed, nor will I ever. "
You are not too quick on the pickup - my comment was ironic sarcasm (I turned the sarcasm back on you) - spockster, on 10/12/2007, -7/+11The difference between Imus and Maher is that, um, Maher IS ON HBO. You can't accidentally hear him say "Anti-Christian" things if you are driving around and happen to flip to his channel. You need to elect to get HBO, on your TV, via your cable provider. If you really have problems with what he says...don't get HBO. Vote with your dollar. That kind of thing wasn't possible with Imus. It's categorically different.
But, hey, you are defending Regent Law so I wouldn't expect you to understand fine distinctions (like between crappy law schools and good ones). - LastVisibleDog, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4spockster: “I guess Imus's firing just coincided with poor ratings too.”
You are free to believe whatever you like.
spockster: “Clearly because I think Regent is a bad law school I must get all my news and opinions from Maher.
You think Regent is a bad law school – US News does not claim Regent is a BAD law school. How did you get this opinion – you have presented no supporting evidence for your conclusion – could it be you are just parroting the opinions of Bill Maher?
(this is too easy)
spockster: “And despite my attendance at a tier 1 school”
Whatever you say Mr. Marginalized Empiricism. You sure as heck don’t demonstrate the intellectual prowess of a “tier 1” law school student.
spockster: “I also must have zero knowledge of the admittance process or criteria.”
Are you claiming there is a connection between the US News ratings and the admittance process for your “tier 1 school” – does this gibber-jabber have a meaning?
spockster: “Tell me: what font of wisdom, what breadth of knowledge has informed your opinions?”
What the heck are you rambling about – what opinions? Can you be specific – following your ramblings is pretty much impossible.
spockster: “Seriously. How or why do you claim to have any special or even remotely related knowledge about this?”
You are the one claiming special knowledge (but clearly not demonstrating – all talk). I merely did the small amount of research necessary to form a position. Give it a try – it is not that hard. In the same amount of time it takes you to brag about your superior knowledge and “tier 1” school you too could form a researched position rather than rambling on endlessly. - gip7478, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10Exactly...
The "Christians" feed off this perceived victim hood..The Republicans use these people to get elected and lower taxes for the rich. That is the real effect of these people voting for the Rove machine the rich get richer and corporations dictate the rules that we all play by. - buildbyflying, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6@macfan: If you want to know the original intent of the first amendment you only need to do a quick google-ing. No one ever said you couldn't participate in gov't. As for "moral" decisions, that's where the line is drawn: might it be more "just" for the doj to practice a little objectivity?
- Dysarthria, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Wait, this is a scandal now? Hiring lawyers from an accredited law school some people don't like?
It's OK to dislike Bush, OK to disagree with his policies, OK to speak out about it, and OK to try to swing people to your POV, but calling something a crime when there isn't one is a slippery slope; just ask Mike Nifong what he'll be doing for the next few years. - LastVisibleDog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3spockster: "The question is not whether advertisers yanked their contracts with ABC, it's why. The market gave effect to what people wanted AFTER this minor scandal. Clearly Maher wasn't so unpopular that he couldn't get air time. He's still on television."
You are rambling again - but I pretty much agree with what I can decipher. If you are showing your superior knowledge of economics, the “why” really does not matter. The free market booted Maher - based on the timing, it seems clear it was based on his "terrorist killing innocent people are brave" stance (and claiming the other guy made me do is pointless - he did not have to agree). Maher currently has a late night show on HBO (HBO is notorious for having a left wing slant) and nobody has claimed he doesn't. I have no problem with anybody making a legal living - I just don't find his hatred very entertaining (and I do really try to watch his show). The Daily Show and The Colbert Report do a much better job because those cats are not seething with hatred like Bill Maher - I just think life is too short for Maher’s circle jerk of hatred and ideology - in my opinion it is not funny and the only way I can imagine it being funny is if you are an extreme ideologue and right now in my life - homie don't play that.
spockster: "I don't give a ***** who or what Dinesh bangs. I'm not a hypocrite"
Having auto-erotic fantasies about Ann Coult does not make you a hypocrite - spockster, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8lastvisibledog:
I bow to your insightful commentary. Leftist suitably humbled. You are so right. I don't have a clue.
Marginalize. Perhaps you are right and I hastily accused you of not knowing what the word means. Yet, I must ask: how can someone who once held the #3 spot at DOJ be "marginalized"? Slaves in Civil War era US o A were "marginalized." Early Christians were "marginalized" in Rome. You can't be marginalized by mere virtue of someone disagreeing with you or thinking your school sucks.
Maher was kicked from ABC for agreeing with Dinesh D'Souza that the 9/11 hijackers weren't cowards. In case you don't know your own ideosphere, D'Souza is a CONSERVATIVE thinker. I won't start on your inane gloss of economics. I actually have a degree in Econ and attend a law school where economics figures prominently in class discourse. I would probably embarrass you because I know more about markets and their underlying philosophies than you do...as evidenced by your use of words like "Leftist" societies. Speaking of "forcing" views, I find it telling that you didn't address my barbed remarks about this administrations attitude toward dissenters or scientific thought. Who forces views on whom, we might ask? And referencing the market is particularly problematic, because Maher was picked up by a subscription cable service, where people pay, in party, to hear his brand of political entertainment. I.e., the market WORKED and he's STILL AROUND. But so is Rush Limbaugh, for what it's worth.
Unsupported? Sorry hoss: there are empirical measures that, albeit imperfect, provide rankings of law schools. Regent does not rank highly. CJ Roberts went to Harvard. He's a conservative. I don't agree with him, but I would never accuse him of being stupid. Would you?
Let's just drop the act. You disagree with me because I think you sign on to a wholly specious narrative of conservative Christian victimhood. This, to you, means I somehow am a Maher apologist or something. Has it occurred to you that I thought Regent sucked ass before this DOJ stuff? That I knew what Regent was, that it has a bad reputation? Besides, if you read my previous comments about rankings, posted above, you'll note that I acknowledge lower-ranked schools as the alma maters of many elite legal thinkers ( the late Mr. Cochran did not go to an impressive school, by way of example).
What's alarming isn't that a top DOJ person went to a lower-ranked school. What's alarming is that she achieved that position with zero prosecutorial experience AND went to a school with a poor academic reputation. That this scandal has evoked this victimhood argument is just a juicy detail. - jetboatfishing, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Look at how many people that year took the bar 59 people! Thats how skewed the statistics are. The overall ranking is 60% because 20 or so took the bar else where but majority take it in Virginia which there passage rate was 74% which is considerably high even higher then some top tier schools. No, I also don't go to Regent.
- Netwatcher, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8Here's one the Maher didn't get to.
"After the take over, the team that was put in charge of rebuilding Iraq was made up almost entirely of Young Republicans straight out of the Heritage Foundation. Most of which with no experience, because they had just graduated school."
And Re publican's wonder what went wrong in Iraq?
P.S. for @lastvisibledog
A Republican calling Libertarians, Greens and Democrats bigots is kind of like a Evangelical Christian calling other faith's religiously intolerant.... Oh wait, that's what you just did. - LastVisibleDog, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5 gip7478: "What a joke, this President has made civility impossible. "
Ah yes - the other guy made me do it. That excuse did not work on the elementary school playground - doubt you can get by with this as an adult.
50% of America says the Clinton's (Bill and Hillary - not George and Parliament/Funkadelic) made civility impossible and now 50% say Bush makes civility impossible - the other guy made me do it. This is a recipe for disaster. - spockster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Dude, he was agreeing WITH A CONSERVATIVE THINKER when he said they were brave: Dinesh D'Souza.
- LastVisibleDog, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Spockster: “You are assuming relationships between the things I said that aren't there.”
What are your rambling about – I guess you avoid specifics lest you expose your intellectual limitations.
Spockster: “It's your blanket use of words like "leftie" that lead to the inexorable conclusion that you are politically conservative.”
So you are saying only conservatives are smart enough to discern the difference between lefties and righties? OK.
Spockster: “It's a right-wing pejorative for so-called liberals. Using it references some place on the political spectrum.”
No kidding – your tuition to that “tier 1” law school is definitely not wasted – leftie and rightie are “references to places in the political spectrum” – WOW, what an intellect! I think it is funny that many people of the left think “Left” “Left-Wing” and “Liberal” are all pejorative.
Spockster: “There are no fancy economic terms to sling around.”
With a statement like that – how could anybody doubt that you have a degree in economics? Maybe if you went to a “tier 1” economics school they would have taught you some fancy terms to sling around.
Spockster: “My point is that the motive for removing Maher predates whatever advertising-market operation you think lead to his removal.”
That is gibberish. You are claiming the reason for removing Maher predates the reason for removing Maher?!? In your mind the fact that Maher’s show was losing money had nothing to do with his show being removed – in regards to your degree in economics, you should ask for your money back.
Spockster: “I quit.”
You should have done that a long time ago. - jetboatfishing, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Jeffrey Skilling (Enron) went to Harvard University. I guess Harvard sucks.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 148 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is