Taylor Swift won 8 Billboard Music Awards...how good is she?

genuine random a hole wrote:

DiscoGary wrote:

Elton John is possibly the best singer/song writer, although he doesn't write his own lyrics. He had a song make it into the charts for 30 straight years, from 1970 to 1999.

So he's just a singer.

I can confidently say you know constitutional law better than music. Take that however you wish.

I'm curious. Does anyone think this comment scored any points on any level?

I've become accustomed to dealing with ignorant belligerence, but I always try to understand WHY they do it. Why would someone waste their time posting that? It's not even good bullying. I don't get it.

What's up with that?

It was an awesome diss, because you are really bad at conlaw.

i haven't heard one song stand out enough to look her up. matter of fact i don't even know what she sounds like because of that. i have seen her pictures though.

ffddfgddddd wrote:

It was an awesome diss, because you are really bad at conlaw.

I had forgotten the first rule of liberalism, demonize your opponent every chance you get, no matter what the situation is. That would be exhausting work if he put any thought into it, but I can see he's getting lazy.

Not biting.

Taught conlaw for two years. If I had a student say the stuff that you say, I'd not only flunk them but probably give up the profession altogether.

It is that bad. I wish I was joking but I'm not.

fkdkdkdkfkfkdkdk wrote:

Not biting.

Taught conlaw for two years. If I had a student say the stuff that you say, I'd not only flunk them but probably give up the profession altogether.

It is that bad. I wish I was joking but I'm not.

i would be fascinated to hear what you taught your students about con law. You know, about how government power is limited by the Constitution, the primary role of protecting individuals rights, abuse of power, tyranny of the majority, and all that. It had to be a disgusting mess of twisted liberal ideology.

I have no doubt I would have failed your class and I would have worn that failure as a badge of honor.

But we'll save that for another thread.

I taught them how to read case law, understand the basic tenets of the US Constitution, and hopefully form their own philosophy of interpretation.

From what I've seen you write you put the horse before the carriage. You go from philosophy to legal analysis and completely skip case law. It's just not how things are done, regardless of your political affiliation.

Look, you make electronics or something similar, right? I can barely use my cell phone. What would you think of me if I came into your job and talked about how electronics should work and how you all don't know what you are doing, despite never having cracked open a book, much less taken a basic course in the stuff?

It's great that you have an interest in the stuff, it really is. But Gary, some of it is bad - really bad.

You know that annoying guy in your family that took a semester of night law school and ruins every holiday get together? Well now he's on lrc.

Getting back to the comparison someone made to Carole king, King was a successful songwriter very early on but her success as a performer didn't come until much later on, with the "Tapestry" album, after she'd already been writing for at least a decade.

Gary, if I could offer one piece of advice, don't assume that everybody who disagrees with you is a liberal. It is dead give away of your inexperience.

I assure that I am not a liberal. In fact, the majority of conlaw profs I know are more conservative or libertarian leaning - myself included.

More importantly, these types of political labels are not even used in courses (except possibly in discussions of the political question doctrine) because they are amorphous and often confuse the issue. Instead, I might ask a student how an opinion might be argued differently using textualism or constructionism - not through a certain political stance.

If you want a good primer, I highly recommend Chemerinsky. The book is well-written and has a good balance of history and analysis.

http://www.amazon.com/Constitutional-Law-Principles-Policies-Treatise/dp/0735598975

djfjffjfjfjfjfjfj wrote:

I taught them how to read case law, understand the basic tenets of the US Constitution, and hopefully form their own philosophy of interpretation.

From what I've seen you write you put the cart before the horse. You go from philosophy to legal analysis and completely skip case law. It's just not how things are done, regardless of your political affiliation.

Look, you make electronics or something similar, right? I can barely use my cell phone. What would you think of me if I came into your job and talked about how electronics should work and how you all don't know what you are doing, despite never having cracked open a book, much less taken a basic course in the stuff?

It's great that you have an interest in the stuff, it really is. But Gary, some of it is bad - really bad.

Wow I just realized what I wrote . . . time for me to turn in.

Chewbacca wrote:

You know that annoying guy in your family that took a semester of night law school and ruins every holiday get together? Well now he's on lrc.

What? Who let uncle Gary get on the internet?

DiscoGary wrote:

I have no doubt I would have failed your class and I would have worn that failure as a badge of ignorance.

Fixed.

All_Thy_Talents wrote:

George w bush is undefeated in presidential elections.

Actually he lost the first, had his father's Supreme Court throw out legitimate votes and appoint him. But he did win the second one unless you count the mysterious, middle of the night comeback in Ohio.

djfjffjfjfjfjfjfj wrote:

I taught them how to read case law, understand the basic tenets of the US Constitution, and hopefully form their own philosophy of interpretation.

From what I've seen you write you put the horse before the carriage. You go from philosophy to legal analysis and completely skip case law. It's just not how things are done, regardless of your political affiliation.

Look, you make electronics or something similar, right? I can barely use my cell phone. What would you think of me if I came into your job and talked about how electronics should work and how you all don't know what you are doing, despite never having cracked open a book, much less taken a basic course in the stuff?

It's great that you have an interest in the stuff, it really is. But Gary, some of it is bad - really bad.

If the founding document of the country began with:

We The People in order to design a more perfect circuit ...

then I would expect everyone to be working on circuits, and if they couldn't get it right, I wouldn't be mocking them and telling them to quit because I have better credentials than they do. I would help them get it right, but I guess that's just a difference in teaching styles between us.

It sounds like your class on Constitutional Law should have been called A History of the Undermining of the Constitution, because that's what case law is. I am aware of how things have been done, and I'm saying it's wrong. The Supreme Court should be ruling on first principles on every case. If they don't then we risk propagating a bad decision from one generation to the next, which is exactly what's happened.

Obey the damned rule book. It's that simple.

Wow this thread got weird fast...

fkdkfkfkfkfkfkfkfkfkf wrote:

Gary, if I could offer one piece of advice, don't assume that everybody who disagrees with you is a liberal. It is dead give away of your inexperience.

I assure that I am not a liberal. In fact, the majority of conlaw profs I know are more conservative or libertarian leaning - myself included.

More importantly, these types of political labels are not even used in courses (except possibly in discussions of the political question doctrine) because they are amorphous and often confuse the issue. Instead, I might ask a student how an opinion might be argued differently using textualism or constructionism - not through a certain political stance.

If you want a good primer, I highly recommend Chemerinsky. The book is well-written and has a good balance of history and analysis.

http://www.amazon.com/Constitutional-Law-Principles-Policies-Treatise/dp/0735598975

I am well aware of the academics need to appear impartial and above the political fray (as they ram their liberal ideology down everyone's throat), so I apologize if calling you a liberal tarnished your credentials. For me, anyone who supports the unending growth of Federal power is a liberal. I could use the terms fascist, totalitarian, or dictatorial, but those come off as a little harsh. Perhaps "Orwellian" is the term that would fit you best. What would you prefer?

You used the term "constructionism". I consider myself a "constructionist" in that I believe the government should be run according to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution as it was written. You know "Obey the damn rule book!" and all that. That term must mean something else in your world, or otherwise you would have labelled me a constructionist right from the start.

Moving forward, I am more concerned about how we fix our broken country than reviewing the death by a thousand case laws that the Constitution has suffered. I've done enough studying to discuss several high profile cases that demonstrate clear distortions of the Constitution by the Supreme Court which negate everything else in the rule book.

Obey the damn rule book. It's that simple.

DiscoGary wrote:

I am aware of how things have been done, and I'm saying it's wrong. The Supreme Court should be ruling on first principles on every case. If they don't then we risk propagating a bad decision from one generation to the next, which is exactly what's happened.

If you disregard case law, then you lose consistency and no one really knows what the law is. As a real estate developer, I know the case law regarding the 5th amendment and takings. I know when my rights are being violated because I can look to past rulings. If every judge and justice rules based on their own interpretation, the whole system becomes arbitrary and I no longer even know what rights I have.

TAA wrote:

Wow this thread got weird fast...

Yeah. I added some non-political content to the thread, and the liberal attack dogs decided to go for my throat again. You'll have to excuse them. It's not their fault. They are poorly trained attack dogs. I blame their trainers, like our resident Constitutional professor. This is on him.

For my part, I have learned that I don't get to decide where or when to fight my battles. So I fight where I stand, whenever I'm attacked. My opponents give me no choice.