Harry Reid: Mitt Is Not The Face Of Mormonism

[_Kishkumen]

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.

Phony, how? I am perfectly frank about where I am coming from, regardless of the opinions of others. I routinely tangle with people on all sides of the discussion. I have a difficult time seeing what is phony about that.

But then, your sense of the actual meaning of English words has often been a little off.

As to the bit about consecrationist: yes, that is right, I would contend that the principles I was arguing had to do with consecration, not socialism.

Now for this notion of me "steadying the ark": I have no interest in steadying the ark of the LDS Church. I really don't care to do so. I may disagree with things that happen in the LDS Church, but I am not interested in being an advocate for changing the LDS Church. You are more of an ark-steadier than I am, what with your bizarre insistence that your retrogade and heartless politics are the only way to be truly LDS.

[_Kishkumen]

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.

Thanks for sharing those interesting insights into your work, sock puppet. I think I have a vague notion of what you are saying. Surely in arguing a case as an advocate for a client one has to employ all of one's wits and imagination, leading not infrequently to some cutting edge interpretations of the law.

That sounds very exciting.

[_Bob Loblaw]

Phony, how? I am perfectly frank about where I am coming from, regardless of the opinions of others. I routinely tangle with people on all sides of the discussion. I have a difficult time seeing what is phony about that.

But then, your sense of the actual meaning of English words has often been a little off.

As to the bit about consecrationist: yes, that is right, I would contend that the principles I was arguing had to do with consecration, not socialism.

Now for this notion of me "steadying the ark": I have no interest in steadying the ark of the LDS Church. I really don't care to do so. I may disagree with things that happen in the LDS Church, but I am not interested in being an advocate for changing the LDS Church. You are more of an ark-steadier than I am, what with your bizarre insistence that your retrogade and heartless politics are the only way to be truly LDS.

"Droopy" does not seem to have a good grasp of English or politics or religion. He's got the hat trick.