Top Law Schools

Bartlebee06 wrote:

kwais wrote:

Bartlebee06 wrote:First of all we have a representative-republic. People like you have progressively turned it socialist starting with Teddy Roosevelt. Yes I am a libertarian. I believe in personal freedom and a persons right to keep what they earn to a large extent. I believe in a flat tax and I think that all of our social programs should be cut back until we can offord to pay for them. Does this sound familliar? Like our founding priciples?

If you selectively and retardedly interpret the founding principles of this country, then yes, right on

Examples?

Sorry to deflect, but I have a quick question. Are you for or against gay marriage? I just find it amazing how many "libertarians" are all about personal freedom only when it's convenient. If you are for gay-marriage, then, by all means, back to our regularly scheduled programming[/quote]

Pro gay-marriage[/quote]

Thank you and congrats. re: above post, aren't some of those a-holes...our funding fathers?

Lol, you guys are arguing with a sophomore in UG.

Additionally, why on earth would a future lawyer argue FOR tort reform? That's like telling your future boss you'd like a pay cut now, please.

kwais wrote:

Bartlebee06 wrote:First of all we have a representative-republic. People like you have progressively turned it socialist starting with Teddy Roosevelt. Yes I am a libertarian. I believe in personal freedom and a persons right to keep what they earn to a large extent. I believe in a flat tax and I think that all of our social programs should be cut back until we can offord to pay for them. Does this sound familliar? Like our founding priciples?

If you selectively and retardedly interpret the founding principles of this country, then yes, right on

Examples?[/quote]

Sorry to deflect, but I have a quick question. Are you for or against gay marriage? I just find it amazing how many "libertarians" are all about personal freedom only when it's convenient. If you are for gay-marriage, then, by all means, back to our regularly scheduled programming[/quote]


Ok so I said I am for gay marriage. Will you deflect again or provide examples?

ahduth wrote:

Bartlebee06 wrote:First of all we have a representative-republic. People like you have progressively turned it socialist starting with Teddy Roosevelt. Yes I am a libertarian. I believe in personal freedom and a persons right to keep what they earn to a large extent. I believe in a flat tax and I think that all of our social programs should be cut back until we can offord to pay for them. Does this sound familliar? Like our founding priciples?

If you selectively and retardedly interpret the founding principles of this country, then yes, right on

Examples?

First of all, why are women allowed to vote? This reeks of communism, and I'll have no part in it.

Support the Females as Property Movement. Save yourself, save society and save the girlies from the tremendous burden they have been required to bear since being allowed to enter general adult society. Some historians believe the burden commenced in 1920 when females were granted the general country-wide privilege of voting. Sadly, as females gained various rights and privileges their inability to accept the accompanying responsibilities has harmed those females, males and society as a whole. The emotion-laden generally irrational female of the human species has fallen short of adult expectations. We must remove the enormous burden from female shoulders for the good of all. Admittedly, there IS a very small percentage of females who ARE capable of bearing the burden of adulthood in our modern society so exceptions will be made for those few. However, easing females out of the requirements of being full-fledged adults and re-assuming their roles of yore will be a blessing in many ways and will assuredly improve the female's general happiness. Society must also shelter all females from their materialistic whims. Protect females from the lure of marketers, advertising and corporate greed. It is obvious too many females are unable to control their urges.

fundamentallybroken wrote:Lol, you guys are arguing with a sophomore in UG.

And we're LOSING. I'm going to be an utter failure as a lawyer.

Bartlebee, you seem to have a fantasy of an America that never existed.
Our founding fathers had slaves, and weren't that crazy about democracy. They saw it as mob-rule and wanted to make it as convoluted as possible so the people didn't have too much power.
The only time we were a superpower was after we already entered the progressive era, we never had a period of limited government and world dominance in either economics or power.

Thread reminded me of why I detest the Right.

kwais wrote:

Bartlebee06 wrote:

kwais wrote:

Bartlebee06 wrote:First of all we have a representative-republic. People like you have progressively turned it socialist starting with Teddy Roosevelt. Yes I am a libertarian. I believe in personal freedom and a persons right to keep what they earn to a large extent. I believe in a flat tax and I think that all of our social programs should be cut back until we can offord to pay for them. Does this sound familliar? Like our founding priciples?

If you selectively and retardedly interpret the founding principles of this country, then yes, right on

Examples?

Sorry to deflect, but I have a quick question. Are you for or against gay marriage? I just find it amazing how many "libertarians" are all about personal freedom only when it's convenient. If you are for gay-marriage, then, by all means, back to our regularly scheduled programming

Pro gay-marriage[/quote]

Thank you and congrats. re: above post, aren't some of those a-holes...our funding fathers?[/quote]

Yes, there were some. Slavery is an unfortunate and tragic thing that took place all over the world and thankfully does not in America. Next question.

ahduth wrote:

fundamentallybroken wrote:Lol, you guys are arguing with a sophomore in UG.

And we're LOSING. I'm going to be an utter failure as a lawyer.

Oh, believe me, you're not losing. He's not only showing his ideas of "founding principles" have sever limitations and contradictions, he's also an utter failure at spelling.

You are most assuredly winning.

There's too many of us and only one of him. For the sake of fairness, I am now a conservative ITT

ahduth wrote:

fundamentallybroken wrote:Lol, you guys are arguing with a sophomore in UG.

And we're LOSING. I'm going to be an utter failure as a lawyer.

I am also 31 and have been around the world. Does my late career change make me less inteligent than you?

Our founding fathers wanted freedom for all !!!!!!!! Today's Tea Party/Libertarians are true patriots who have the right plan for 2011 and beyond!!!! We must look to the 1700s for the answers to today's problems!!!

fundamentallybroken wrote:

ahduth wrote:

fundamentallybroken wrote:Lol, you guys are arguing with a sophomore in UG.

And we're LOSING. I'm going to be an utter failure as a lawyer.

Oh, believe me, you're not losing. He's not only showing his ideas of "founding principles" have sever limitations and contradictions, he's also an utter failure at spelling.

You are most assuredly winning.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pipTwjwrQYQ

Bartlebee06 wrote:

ahduth wrote:

fundamentallybroken wrote:Lol, you guys are arguing with a sophomore in UG.

And we're LOSING. I'm going to be an utter failure as a lawyer.

I am also 31 and have been around the world. Does my late career change make me less inteligent than you?

Well, at least the world travel explains you're ESL sentence structure. No, your late career change says nothing of your intelligence - it's your blind ideas and reliance on "libertarian" talking points that do that.

fundamentallybroken wrote:

ahduth wrote:

fundamentallybroken wrote:Lol, you guys are arguing with a sophomore in UG.

And we're LOSING. I'm going to be an utter failure as a lawyer.

Oh, believe me, you're not losing. He's not only showing his ideas of "founding principles" have sever limitations and contradictions, he's also an utter failure at spelling.

You are most assuredly winning.

Yes I am at work and not taking the time to reread my responses. I will make som errors> please bear with me and stop deflecting.

Someone mobilizing every garbage right wing argument they can, lauding the founding fathers when appropriate and apologizing for them when necessary, is winning in a very similar way to the kind of winning that Charlie Sheen is doing. Oh and to answer your question Bartlebee, still deflecting (it is more fun)

aliarrow wrote:There's too many of us and only one of him. For the sake of fairness, I am now a conservative ITT

Thanks!

ahduth wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pipTwjwrQYQ

With zeal. And hatred.

And violent... focus.

kwais wrote:Someone mobilizing every garbage right wing argument they can, lauding the founding fathers when appropriate and apologizing for them when necessary, is winning in a very similar way to the kind of winning that Charlie Sheen is doing. Oh and to answer your question Bartlebee, still deflecting (it is more fun)

Deflect away! If thats what you enjoy. It is your right. Atleast for now.....

kwais wrote:Someone mobilizing every garbage right wing argument they can, lauding the founding fathers when appropriate and apologizing for them when necessary, is winning in a very similar way to the kind of winning that Charlie Sheen is doing. Oh and to answer your question Bartlebee, still deflecting (it is more fun)

But would you not agree that lower taxes and limited government would enlarge the pie, creating a better quality of life for all economic strata?

GTF back to work! Someone stealing from their employers by wasting time on TLS is not, good sir, following the principles of our founding fathers.

You sir, are a thief. (Pow! Deflection!)

aliarrow wrote:

kwais wrote:Someone mobilizing every garbage right wing argument they can, lauding the founding fathers when appropriate and apologizing for them when necessary, is winning in a very similar way to the kind of winning that Charlie Sheen is doing. Oh and to answer your question Bartlebee, still deflecting (it is more fun)

But would you not agree that lower taxes and limited government would enlarge the pie, creating a better quality of life for all economic strata?

Hey, your pretty good at this!

aliarrow wrote:

kwais wrote:Someone mobilizing every garbage right wing argument they can, lauding the founding fathers when appropriate and apologizing for them when necessary, is winning in a very similar way to the kind of winning that Charlie Sheen is doing. Oh and to answer your question Bartlebee, still deflecting (it is more fun)

But would you not agree that lower taxes and limited government would enlarge the pie, creating a better quality of life for all economic strata?

Wow, this topic descended.

I would not agree. I believe, and many economists would agree, that that would stagnate the economy since there would be fewer legitimate consumers.

Edit: Holy shit what am I doing, I am not getting pulled into this.

aliarrow wrote:

kwais wrote:Someone mobilizing every garbage right wing argument they can, lauding the founding fathers when appropriate and apologizing for them when necessary, is winning in a very similar way to the kind of winning that Charlie Sheen is doing. Oh and to answer your question Bartlebee, still deflecting (it is more fun)

But would you not agree that lower taxes and limited government would enlarge the pie, creating a better quality of life for all economic strata?

If everyone worked for the government, then the pie would be as big as it possibly could, thereby ensuring the best quality of life for all, not just for a few.

(hey, if you get to be a conservative now, I get to be Fidel!)

aliarrow wrote:

kwais wrote:Someone mobilizing every garbage right wing argument they can, lauding the founding fathers when appropriate and apologizing for them when necessary, is winning in a very similar way to the kind of winning that Charlie Sheen is doing. Oh and to answer your question Bartlebee, still deflecting (it is more fun)

But would you not agree that lower taxes and limited government would enlarge the pie, creating a better quality of life for all economic strata?

Indeed I would not agree (you are good at this)