Harry Reid: Mitt Is Not The Face Of Mormonism

[_Bob Loblaw]

Anyone with a lick of sense would be worried about accruing Droopy cred.

I hesitate to go with first impressions but this time they were right.

[_Droopy]

Can we start calling Droopy "Sugar Bear"?

[_Droopy]

Well said. Droopy is a blight. When Daniel Peterson complained about the power of small-minded people on the internet, Droopy was the first person who came to my mind.

You're among the most egregious phonies in this forum, Kish, and your transparency only increases with every syllable you post.

Kishkumen the consecrationist (i.e., self-righteous leftist apostate ark steadier and all-around anti-Mormon accuser of the Brethren) pronounces moral sentence upon sundry apologists with abandon.

We live in interesting times.

[_Bob Loblaw]

You're among the most egregious phonies in this forum, Kish, and your transparency only increases with every syllable you post.

Kishkumen the consecrationist (i.e., self-righteous leftist apostate ark steadier and all-around anti-Mormon accuser of the Brethren) pronounces moral sentence upon sundry apologists with abandon.

We live in interesting times.

I don't have to be self-righteous to know that you're kind of a dick and not nearly as intelligent as you think you are. But then I don't need to say that because it's obvious to anyone who reads your bitter drivel.

[_Droopy]

I don't have to be self-righteous to know that you're kind of a dick and not nearly as intelligent as you think you are. But then I don't need to say that because it's obvious to anyone who reads your bitter drivel.

You know, "Bob," what's very interesting about you is that you've spent literally your entire posting history here, when posting about me, or engaging me, condemning me for what you perceive as personal character defects, while, the fact of the matter is that this is virtually all you ever do yourself. I've never seen a thing of intellectual substance come from your keyboard, or, indeed, anything that wasn't personal.

I find the brazen overtness of your hypocrisy here to be more than a bit odd, given that that last few months I've moved well away from the sharpness I've used (on occasion) in the past, and that even the most restrained and diplomatically worded personal observations (which do have to be made, now and then) elicit the very same outrage, no matter what their nature, while your own elicit no such condemnation (including your viscous four-letter insults and cut-downs, which I have never used).

With all due respect, Bob, your mother wears combat boots.

[_Droopy]

Your envy and self-consciousness regarding your own intellectual capabilities, education, and intelligence compared to mine is also duly noted.

[_Bob Loblaw]

You know, "Bob," what's very interesting about you is that you've spent literally your entire posting history here, when posting about me, or engaging me, condemning me for what you perceive as personal character defects, while, the fact of the matter is that this is virtually all you ever do yourself. I've never seen a thing of intellectual substance come from your keyboard, or, indeed, anything that wasn't personal.

I find the brazen overtness of your hypocrisy here to be more than a bit odd, given that that last few months I've moved well away from the sharpness I've used (on occasion) in the past, and that even the most restrained and diplomatically worded personal observations (which do have to be made, now and then) elicit the very same outrage, no matter what their nature, while your own elicit no such condemnation (including your viscous four-letter insults and cut-downs, which I have never used).

With all due respect, Bob, your mother wears combat boots.

To be judged lacking by you is high honor, indeed. I attempted to have a polite conversation with you but you would not have it. When I pointed out my disappointment you posted an insulting picture. It's not my fault that you can't be civil, even for a moment, or engage ideas. I'm not outraged by anything you've done but your delusions of intellectual grandeur are sort of poignantly humorous.

People told me not to take you seriously, and I should have listened to them. There is nothing serious about you, except maybe your inflated ego.

[_Droopy]

You know, "Bob," what's very interesting about you is that you've spent literally your entire posting history here, when posting about me, or engaging me, condemning me for what you perceive as personal character defects, while, the fact of the matter is that this is virtually all you ever do yourself. I've never seen a thing of intellectual substance come from your keyboard, or, indeed, anything that wasn't personal.

I find the brazen overtness of your hypocrisy here to be more than a bit odd, given that that last few months I've moved well away from the sharpness I've used (on occasion) in the past, and that even the most restrained and diplomatically worded personal observations (which do have to be made, now and then) elicit the very same outrage, no matter what their nature, while your own elicit no such condemnation (including your viscous four-letter insults and cut-downs, which I have never used).

With all due respect, Bob, your mother wears combat boots.

To be judged lacking by you is high honor, indeed. I attempted to have a polite conversation with you but you would not have it. When I pointed out my disappointment you posted an insulting picture. It's not my fault that you can't be civil, even for a moment, or engage ideas. I'm not outraged by anything you've done but your delusions of intellectual grandeur are sort of poignantly humorous.

People told me not to take you seriously, and I should have listened to them. There is nothing serious about you, except maybe your inflated ego.

Goodbye, "Bob."

[_Bob Loblaw]

Goodbye, "Bob."

Parting is such sweet sorrow--not in this case.

[_sock puppet]

I've been mulling over for a couple of days now the debate that broke out in this thread, academics v practitioners.

I have one of those practical advanced law degrees in tax law. I have authored more than a dozen pieces on tax law that have been published in national journals, subscribed to primarily by practitioners, not academics.

My practice is primarily tax planning, as I understand Jason Bourne's work primarily to be.

But I have always maintained a portion, 20 to 30%, of my practice in business and trust litigation.

Inside a law firm, there is usually a divide between and subtle barbs going back and forth between 'planners'/'office practitioners' and litigators ('real lawyers'). Having straddled that division of practitioners all of my career, I have the perspective that I actually think that litigation is more heady than planning. As a planner, I am always cautionary to my clients, suggesting they take the conservative interpretation where the statutes, regulations, case law etc. is not squarely on point. A lot of CYA letters are written, particularly when the client chooses to buck my advice and take the bold tax position.

In litigation, I have the greater latitude to theorize from what legal guideposts there are. I am suggesting to the judge in briefing that the policies that underpin those known legal authorities should be extended to this result or that one for the particular facts of our case. I am often arguing that a particular appellate court got it wrong in issuing some precedential opinion or another. Recently, I witnessed a judge and my opposing attorney in a case argue about the proper interpretation of two case decisions of precedential value. The debate was fascinating. It went on for an hour and 20 minutes. Quite rare. Both making good points (the judge making mine for me).

At the same time, in litigating I have to be concerned about whether the witness will show up at the right time to be called to the stand.

I am sure an academic professor too balances the mundane chores of being on faculty with the opportunities to let ideas bloom in his head.