Republican Flips and Flops

[strk]

Originally posted by Capt. Pork
I will certainly read it. I made the mistake of reading 1L(Turow) before deciding to follow the Law track and am still trying to talk myself down from the hysteria.

Nevertheless, there are many things with which I do not agree. My dad's a doctor. For the last 5 years, he's been elected, by his peers, as the favored practitioner of his specialty in the state of DE(small, I, know, and his specialty is Neurosurgery, thus putting him up against no more than 7 or 8 others at any one time). I would have liked to practive Medical Law, to defend innocent MDs from frivolous law suits. It pisses me off... Because why should my pops, who, at the age of 60, and with a triple by-pass and a titanium heart valve, need to pay over 300k a year in mal-practice insurance when he's never been sued, for any reason(knock on wood)? He cannot retire because he cannot afford to keep paying 300k a year for 5 years, which is what they require of him in the event of a lawsuit down the line... He's a good man, who gives at least ten hours a week of his time to charity, and performs 30% of his operations free of charge because, after all, doctors, especially in his field, exist to save lives, first and foremost...

I think that your friend Bill Clinton did much to ruin the situation for good MDs. He is one of the reasons I'm a conservative at a relatively young age.

I will not make it into malpractice law because I want to work sooner, rather than later, and malpractice law requires a working knowledge of the medical profession and thus, far more education and invested time.

The closest thing I can do is to defend other hard-working, high-earning americans from the injustice of disproportionately elevated income taxes. This is my belief, however unpopular, and I shall stick to it.

Either that or entertainment law, as I still dream of becoming a novelist one day(creative writing is my number-one hobby, followed closely by drinking and looking at naked women--one eye partially drooping and tongue hanging).

Either way, STRK, I respect your beliefs, in spite of my previous statements. I'm glad we can share a nation where at least there's some sort of conceivable middle ground--albeit one that I cannot, at the moment, conceive of myself.

you may be suprised to learn that I did not like Clinton and did not vote for him in 96.  He was far too centrist with his DLC leadership and promotion of NAFTA.  Also the idiot couldnt keep his dick or his cigar out of fat interns.

As far as MD malpractice - I know that the insurance is a problem and I don;t have any knowledge of Med Mal law but I will tell you what I have heard and that is that the AMA is partially responsible for the high MD Malpractice Insurance rates because it is very hard to pull a MD license even after they really screw up.  THerefore it is .01% of the MDs that jack up the rates for all the other MDs like your dad who have never had a problem.  

edit - check out what Va (my state - and the toughest bar exam in the nation) is doing with this problem - the state is going to insure high risk MDs so that rates can be lowered for the rest - a pretty nifty idea imo

Turow's 1L is ok, the other book that shows the quintessential 1L experience is  "THe Paper Chase" - but that Planet Law School book is a how to kick bellybutton in L school guide that will help you a lot.

I think the best description of the 1L experience is " Learning to play chess by playing with a master before you even know the rules of the game"  Get those outlines early and you  will have  agreat LSchool career

[Toad]

Originally posted by Sixpence
And if you want to dance around it, go ahead.

LOL. You can't show Jack.

It's isn't just aid to Israel, it's the whole Arabs vs Israel in the Middle East that is part and parcel of that expense.

You say the Sixth Fleet is in the Med to "protect our oil" but you can't back it up. You refuse to consider that it's just as likely that the Sixth is "muscle" to keep Israel alive, is a part of our Nato committment, etc., etc.

BTW, just who is all that military muscle "protecting our oil" from? From the guys who want to sell it to us? What?

There's dancing going on but I'm sitting watching someone do the two-step.

[Toad]

Originally posted by strk
Do you think it matters if he is taxed at 30 or 35 %?  He wont notice it...  

Yet you vote for a party that will cause you to pay a higher percentage of your non-survival income as taxes,...

When did America adopt this culture of greed?  was it gordon gekko and miami vice?

Ah, OK. I get it now. As long as the victim "won't notice it" the new morals are that it is OK to steal from him. Gotcha!

Hey, Kewl! Every few years we can redraw the line on where the guy will begin to notice it and then we can smugly and morally steal MORE from him!

And that party would be the Democrats, btw.

When did America adopt this culture of theft justified by envy?

[Toad]

Originally posted by strk
they spend that money for the common good,

If only that were true.

[Sixpence]

Originally posted by Toad
LOL. You can't show Jack.

It's isn't just aid to Israel, it's the whole Arabs vs Israel in the Middle East that is part and parcel of that expense.

You say the Sixth Fleet is in the Med to "protect our oil" but you can't back it up. You refuse to consider that it's just as likely that the Sixth is "muscle" to keep Israel alive, is a part of our Nato committment, etc., etc.

BTW, just who is all that military muscle "protecting our oil" from? From the guys who want to sell it to us? What?

There's dancing going on but I'm sitting watching someone do the two-step.

The only one two stepping is you, and you are being rediculous, we have been securing oil for years. Yeah, all that military presence in the middle east is to help the farmers count their sand granules. And it's the 5th fleet, and they're there as a commuter ferry.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20030701faessay15401/kenneth-m-pollack/securing-the-gulf.html

IT'S THE OIL, STUPID

America's primary interest in the Persian Gulf lies in ensuring the free and stable flow of oil from the region to the world at large. This fact has nothing to do with the conspiracy theories leveled against the Bush administration during the run-up to the recent war. U.S. interests do not center on whether gas is $2 or $3 at the pump, or whether Exxon gets contracts instead of Lukoil or Total. Nor do they depend on the amount of oil that the United States itself imports from the Persian Gulf or anywhere else. The reason the United States has a legitimate and critical interest in seeing that Persian Gulf oil continues to flow copiously and relatively cheaply is simply that the global economy built over the last 50 years rests on a foundation of inexpensive, plentiful oil, and if that foundation were removed, the global economy would collapse.

'If Kuwait grew carrots, we wouldn't give a damn."

--Lawrence Korb, assistant defense secretary under Reagan, as the U.S. prepared its massive military assault on Iraq in 1991.

Lol, and saddam didn't invade Kuwait for it's oil, it's just plain rediculous. He invaded for their WMD. BTW, didn't you lose a bet? You're not exactly batting a thousand are ya?

[Toad]

Again, you discount all other factors and attribute the entire cost to "protecting the oil". We maintain huge fleets and troops in other areas of the world that have no oil. There's the basic flaw.

You can't quantify the actual cost, therefore your biodiesel "true cost" can't be determined.

Beyond that, the only biodiesel price that actually matters is the pump price. You won't get people to actively seek it out until the pump price is lower than petrodiesel. At the present time it isn't, so the answer to your question "why aren't don't we use biodiesel" is quite simple and obvious to the casual observer.

It's because end user the pump price is/would be higher than petrodiesel.

Rant about fleets and this and that but there's the bottom line.

[Toad]

Yeah, I lost a bet. Two, actually.

So?

[Sixpence]

Originally posted by Toad
Again, you discount all other factors and attribute the entire cost to "protecting the oil". We maintain huge fleets and troops in other areas of the world that have no oil. There's the basic flaw.

You can't quantify the actual cost, therefore your biodiesel "true cost" can't be determined.

Beyond that, the only biodiesel price that actually matters is the pump price. You won't get people to actively seek it out until the pump price is lower than petrodiesel. At the present time it isn't, so the answer to your question "why aren't don't we use biodiesel" is quite simple and obvious to the casual observer.

It's because end user the pump price is/would be higher than petrodiesel.

Rant about fleets and this and that but there's the bottom line.

Rant? It's a plain fact, you want to deny we spend billions securing the middle for it's oil, well, I can see why you lost that bet. And that has to be factored in, those are our tax dollars. Beside that the benefits to our farmers would be great, they would have an infinite income from renewable energy, not to mention the evironmental cost of oil,lost jobs, and wealth leaving the country. I flew with a guy in fighter ace who worked for an oil corporation, and I asked him when the known oil reserves will run out. He told me that in 80 years that will happen, which surprised me a little because I was expecting hundreds of years at least. Now we use oil for plastics and other things, so to me now is the time to stop wasting it as fuel for cars, that would be common sense if we think of the future, no? Biodiesel would become much cheaper at the pump as more competition grows, but there is no initiative to do so. It's a no brainer.

found this, a little off subject, but not by much, he rips into Clinton big time, then has a few choice words for Bush

http://www.intelbriefing.com/bocfr.htm