I would say that if you are really passionate about an area of the law then go even if you can't get into a top school (sad fact is you likely won't). If you just want a comfortable life and a job that pays well, think about another path. I went to a less than great (but not bad) school and have a job that I love. It pays 38k a year.
Yes but sex is the purest form of pleasure and all people seek out pleasure. We can limit food stamps to essential government made nutrient loaves but people enjoy the taste of food. Also no sex would equal the death of our race. Lastly I believe not having sex is harmful to the psyche. People need to feel another person to feel complete. Trust me I know, I have gone through many a dry spell and after a few months you don't feel as good.
Blinking Spirit that was very well said. I do think the fact that this kid was unarmed makes it more likely the officer was in the wrong, even if he was legally justified. Between the pepper spray, baton, taser, and training given to most officers I don't get why you have to shoot someone multiple times when they don't have a weapon. I will say, reiterating Blinking's notion that the most important thing is that there is a fair trial and investigation that comports with due process. One thing I want to add. I work in Missouri in a government job that deals with the police on a regular basis. While I live about 2.5 hours from Ferguson and can only speak for one rural county, not the best cops in the world. Largely uneducated and inept. Many have the badass with a badge mentality. To be fair, I never dealt with them as often before either.
I knew some one was going to call me out on that generalization. I'm not rescinding it. The number of life long virgins is so low it shouldn't be counted as at all significant. Its a fundamental part of the human experience. Just like breathing and walking. The percentage of people who are life long virgins is probably lower than those who can't walk or breathe without mechanical aid. The percentage of people who have sex is certainly far higher than the percentage of people who need heart pills. There is no controversy about those.
My god you just provided talking points instead of responding. So is it fraud to pay for anxiety medication with your insurance? What about heart disease medication? Cholesterol medication? Much of this subsidized medication, which people depend upon, is preventitive and not imminently necessary to keep someone alive. Its all covered by health insurance. More than half of working adults take medication. By your logic a lousy thyroid that requires meds at coverage? Fraud. Asthma problem? Fraud. Depression? Fraud. If anything those ailments which most people support subsidizing are more likely to result in fraud because not everyone suffers from those afflictions. All adults have sex. Many people get health insurance just to subsidize those aforementioned conditions and no one is arguing that having your heart pills knowingly covered constitutes fraud. Look up the legal definition of fraud.
Your argument that of course we need to parcel what is included under health insurance proves you lack the intelligence to refer to a congressman as "idiot #2". I was saying they are all health insurance and are defined as such. Why do we need 20 different terms when they are all already defined under the definition of health insurance? Do you really think health insurance isn't defined by statutes and coverage policies? Do you really think literally calling them "back insurance" and "flu insurance" will help? You also seem to be seriously confused about something, the government doesn't pay for health insurance. Employers and employees do. All the ACA did was add more regulations. The only people whose insurance is payed for by the government are state/federal employees such as myself. Guess what, part of my coverage still comes out of my paycheck.
Also, you were provided with logical arguments challenging your definition of health insurance. You ignored every argument. You accused us of being pro-life politically over correct atypical super liberals. Neither Jay nor myself made such an argument. We answered a question. You didn't like our answers so instead of challenging our logic like an adult you ignored it, put words in our mouth, and ranted. Lastly, birth control equals eugenics? My family tree was hacked limb by limb during the holocaust, that is beyond an insulting argument. I can't even begin to parcel your reason because its not there. Your wife can't get a job because of new health insurance mandates? Thats laughable. Primarily because most insurance in existence well before Obamacare provided subsidized birth control. You know what I'm done responding to you, its pointless.
I want to note that if anyone would like to rationally support AC I would love to hear it. Bitterroot, I am thinking of you in particular. I have nothing but respect for reasonable people challenging me and am happy to listen to opposing views, so long as they aren't quotes from whatever extremist news source you favor.
Jay just answered your question in plain English and you are feigning confusion because Rush Limbaugh won't let you accept his answer. Also, assuming your a republican, wouldn't you rather the state subsidize a pill that costs pennies to press than 18 years of childhood? Lastly, birth control is covered by most health insurance. If you are a state employee in most of this country, you get subsidized birth control. Its not like Obamacare created the concept that health insurance equates to birth control. Please ask your girlfriend/wife/sister if her jobs health insurance covers birth control. The likely answer is yes. Under your logic the difference between health insurance, flu insurance, surgery insurance, back insurance, and contraceptive insurance all need to be specified. I think you are intelligent enough to realize what a silly argument that is.
It is hard. I did get a job within 6 months of taking the bar exam. If you can't fill out hundreds of applications in a six month span, your doing it wrong. It is exactly what I wanted to do for most of my life, just in a location that is less than ideal. I LOVE my job. I hate where I live. I would also like to note that the world today does not encourage people to join the legal profession. Many are intent on scaring people off the path as the job market is over saturated. I just want this guy to know thats not always the case.
I did well on the LSAT and passed two bar exams on my first try without taking prep courses. Prep courses are a waste of money. Study on your own. Also I advise that you do NOT join the website top law schools, or above the law. Both forums are for "gunners" (very annoying law school students who think they are always right and love the sound of their own voices despite often being wrong). Both forums are also filled with disenchanted grads who are unemployed and take it upon themselves to warn the world of the evils of law school. Furthermore, many law school students are hyper competitive D-bags. There are plenty of attorney's on this site believe it or not. Many of us decent people. Also if you rethink corporate law don't worry about going to a great school. I went to University of Wyoming College of Law to save money and got a job I absolutely love as an attorney right out of school. While top 20 (or 10) is good advice for corporate "big law" it is not necessary for most other fields. Most people I went to school with got jobs as attorneys within 6 month of passing the bar. I will warn you that law school is a major financial investment. If you are not absolutely certain you want to be a lawyer, consider other options. Unlike many other graduate programs, you will likely not get a stipend, not get a tremendous amount of scholarship money, and you will leave deep in debt. I worked 50 hours a week as a cook in law school (technically not allowed) and still left with a huge mound of debt. My debt was 1/3 that of the average law school grad.
Taking pre-law courses help but honestly, its all about overall GPA (don't major in art history) and even more so LSAT scores. Some schools care more about admission essays than others. Keep your nose clean. Unlike undergrad, law schools (and later bar associations) care A LOT about criminal history. You can graduate law school, pass the bar exam and be denied a license under the character and fitness review. If you want to do corporate law you want to make money (its boring as hell). You are a smarter man than I. I am a public defender. If you want to succeed in the corporate world you want to do "big law" in a major city. This means if you can't get into a top 20 law school you might not get to do what you want right out of school. If you don't get into a Tier 1 school, don't even go unless your flexible on whether or not you want to work corporate. Most big corporate firms won't even look at students unless they graduated top of their class at a great school. The pool of candidates is massive and the positions few. Also being a first year associate at a corporate form is akin to slavery. The weeks are 100 hours long and billing practices flirt on immoral. You do make a TON of money.
I will say this, my friend group from my hometown was a good mix of men and women. I'd say about 50/50. I have long since moved away, have not been part of that group for about 4 years. We are all 24-27. Recently, a lot of my friends from home got back into MTG. They only play when there are no women around, typically in the afternoon.
Your argument that of course we need to parcel what is included under health insurance proves you lack the intelligence to refer to a congressman as "idiot #2". I was saying they are all health insurance and are defined as such. Why do we need 20 different terms when they are all already defined under the definition of health insurance? Do you really think health insurance isn't defined by statutes and coverage policies? Do you really think literally calling them "back insurance" and "flu insurance" will help? You also seem to be seriously confused about something, the government doesn't pay for health insurance. Employers and employees do. All the ACA did was add more regulations. The only people whose insurance is payed for by the government are state/federal employees such as myself. Guess what, part of my coverage still comes out of my paycheck.
Also, you were provided with logical arguments challenging your definition of health insurance. You ignored every argument. You accused us of being pro-life politically over correct atypical super liberals. Neither Jay nor myself made such an argument. We answered a question. You didn't like our answers so instead of challenging our logic like an adult you ignored it, put words in our mouth, and ranted. Lastly, birth control equals eugenics? My family tree was hacked limb by limb during the holocaust, that is beyond an insulting argument. I can't even begin to parcel your reason because its not there. Your wife can't get a job because of new health insurance mandates? Thats laughable. Primarily because most insurance in existence well before Obamacare provided subsidized birth control. You know what I'm done responding to you, its pointless.
I want to note that if anyone would like to rationally support AC I would love to hear it. Bitterroot, I am thinking of you in particular. I have nothing but respect for reasonable people challenging me and am happy to listen to opposing views, so long as they aren't quotes from whatever extremist news source you favor.
Also, read this:
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/outside-magic/water-cooler-talk/real-life-advice/567365-trying-to-research-whether-law-school-is-right-for
Lastly, feel free to PM me any time.