LawStudentMan
SHARE THIS PAGE View Viral Dashboard ›
    • LawStudentMan

      The Tet Offensive was a somewhat surprise, not totally as implied. The South Vietnamese and North Vietnamese called for a two day cease fire for the Vietnamese new year (Tet). However, US intelligence knew that the NV were planning an imminent offensive. In communist fashion, the NV and Vietcong broke the cease fire in the early morning of the first day of “peace.” It was our fault for believing that the NV would uphold their end, and we should have attacked instead of them.  What impact was there? 4100ish American dead vs. 50,000ish NV/VC dead? That sounds like the US got their shit together rather quickly. The Tet offensive almost destroyed the NV/VC fighting force. Had we pursued them, we would have destroyed the enemy and won the war right then.  People fail to remember that the Vietnam War was a complete victory militarily (outside of very small scrimmages). We “lost” the war because we allowed the NV to win the political war. Only 52,000+ Americans died in the war vs almost 1,000,000 NV (and allies) dead. If we had cut the Ho Chi Minh Trail, like Westmoreland wanted to, the war would have ended sooner as well. We should have “violated” Cambodian and Laotian neutrality the second the NV did. Instead, we allowed them to conduct military operations (basically unchecked) in those countries the whole war. Furthermore, the Johnson administration should have censored the media’s coverage of the war.  It was mainly McNamara’s fault we “lost” the war, because he would never let the military brass engage as they wanted to. The pinkos in the media did help anything either.

    • LawStudentMan

      Number 2: Fucking kids now a days. It’s all fun and games until your are destroying merchandise, possibly causing a real hazard with spilt milk/oj, scaring the shit out of other customers, scaring the shit out of the supermarket employees, totally acting like a jackass, etc. Planking was stupid, but at least it wasn’t hurting anyone or destroying property (unless you tried I suppose). I’m not that old, and already I feel like the old man on the front porch yelling at kids. But let’s face it, kids now a days make it easy. Goddamn punks on my lawn!

    • LawStudentMan

      How am I wrong.? I already said the Jefferson was against any state sponsored religion, but he did not concern himself with the other states (just the fed and VA). Read it again slick. He talks of a wall of separation, not a fortress. The wall he speaks of is to protect the smaller religions that may suffer if there is a state sponsored religion. If there was such a strict separation, as the courts have found there to be, why did it take 200 years to figure it out? Why would they mention God in the Declaration of Independence? Yet we are now convinced that God had no influence on our founding. Explain why states even had state sponsored religions if it was not suppose to be? You can’t. We have unfortunately construed the entire text of the Constitution to apply to the states. Does it not seem odd to anyone that the Constitution was to limit the federal government? Yet they are stomping all over state sovereignty. This is the entire problem with the Prop 8 issue. It was duly passed by the citizens of CA, but of course the federal courts have said no. If the Supreme Court rules that no state can ban same sex marriage, then it is just another way the feds have trampled state prerogative. It’s come to the point where it is pointless for states to even have their own constitutions and laws. Since, they are just subject to the whims of the federal courts. That, is something Jefferson would never have wanted.

    • LawStudentMan

      I love how every one on here says that the “cause God said so, etc” is just broken record logic. Well I have news for pro-homosexuals, your “love, love, love…, etc.” is also a broken record. The word marriage has a strictly defined meaning. In no dictionary prior to this century/millennium (possibly even into the mid to late 00’s) will you find the definition of marriage refer to a same sex couple. I look to my 2003 printing of the Webster’s Unabridged, and there is no mention of same sex union. However, if you go to Webster’s online, they have now included the definition to mean same sex as well. Well, you just simply cannot do that. I cannot call a poster a car so many times that people just accept it, because car does not mean poster. I understand that languages can change over time, but the commonality of older words generally remain the same. Usually there are words added, rather than dropped or meaning changed. Thus there is an expansion of vocabulary, not change. Gay never meant homosexual until the 60’s/70’s. It was meant as a synonym for happy, joyful, etc. That was also changed. However, the homosexual agenda powers that be, have been able to completely change meanings of words that had nothing to do with homosexuality.  As for separation of church and state argument, please. If you actually read what the founders intended (the federalist and anti-federalist papers), you will find that the separation between church and state (in the Constitution) is only for the federal government, and only so far as to ban the feds from supporting any one religion. Meaning, the federal government cannot mandate that we pay a tax to support Catholicism, Judaism, Islam, etc. There is no barring of legislatures to use their faith as a basis for the way the government should run/the way they vote. Furthermore, a strict and proper way of interpreting the separation clause would allow each state to decide if they want to have an official religion. Thomas Jefferson did not personally like it, and worked to outlaw it in Virginia, but he wouldn’t really care what Georgia or Connecticut did on the matter. Many states did in fact have state sponsored religion. The courts have unfortunately ruled that the separation clause means anything from not allowed to display the 10 commandments on public property to no prayer at official school events (even if only three or so people show up). This is most definitely counter to the Founder’s vision of the separation clause, and it has zero application in this debate.

    • LawStudentMan

      I think Banksy is a talented guy, but he is committing a criminal act when he does his stuff. If I owned some of these properties with his graffiti, I would be very pissed. Not only that, I now have to either pay someone to clean it, or waste time cleaning it myself. I don’t care that he is expressing himself, or whatever new bullshit artist say they are doing, he is destroying property. Why can’t he just apply things to canvas? He’s obviously talented enough to paint a discernable picture. Plus, his art will last potentially forever (and might turn a buck too). Once someone removes one of his “street installations,” it is gone (unless he comes back). Furthermore, how does he do some of these things without getting caught? I imagine some of the bigger “paintings” take a a chuck of time to do properly. Point being, he is just a petty criminal who can actually draw.

    • LawStudentMan

      Fuck this guy! No one held a gun to his head and said, “join the military.” I’m sorry that the guy was hurt, and may die from his wounds, but he should have known full well what he was getting into. My grandfather was seriously wounded in WWII and almost died. However, while he did have some lasting side effects, he still raised 8 kids and never complained. My point being that there are too many former soldiers being pussies now a days (those who exemplify the understanding set forth are excluded (basically the majority of soldiers)). I understand that x amount of soldiers will have some ptsd, life long wounds, and mortal wounds. But, that goes along with the job. The military should make sure that these soldiers get the proper help (public or private), but the military/executive branch should not bear the fault. This is why we have a voluntary military, the president has to have congressional approval to go to war, and the American people were overwhelmingly pro Iraq invasion in the beginning (as was the case in all other American wars (beginning or entire)). It is your decision to join or not.  Some will say that we should never have been in Iraq, and there may be a good case for that argument (general political not specific political (i.e. George Bush is a war monger. This is false because Congress authorized the invasion)), but that is not for the soldiers to decide. I personally believe that we should have invaded Iraq, but the Bush Administration did a horrible job of managing the war. Sure this means that some people may have died, or been seriously hurt unnecessarily, but they still knew the risk when they voluntarily joined.  In my humble opinion, only soldiers who have been truly shafted by the military (see the movie Breaker Morant), or know that the military/civilian hierarchy are doing something immoral/illegal should be those who speak out. Soldiers who were willingly hurt have no ground to stand on (this includes draftees, as you willing go after being drafted). You are stationed where you are told, and you accept that like a good soldier. If you don’t like it, don’t re-enlist when the time comes.

    • LawStudentMan

      This WAS written for men who are attracted to women. Considering 95+% of people are not homosexual, it stands to reason that there will be more studies researching attraction between the sexes, not within the sexes. If you want studies of inter sex attraction, go to your local university/college and ask someone around the sociology department to study it. Otherwise, let’s keep your political trolling to a minimum (or at least to some post that it may make sense in). Not everything needs to have a homosexual angle.

    • LawStudentMan

      Firstly, Simply holding a bag of oranges on the side of the road, probably does not constitute street vending in CA. This is akin to saying I’m street vending because people can see my car parked, and someone might ask to buy it. Second, considering this guy probably works for Buzzfeed, he is not stealing their wifi signal. He is (generally) entitled to it as an employee. Third, if they are filming this on private property (perhaps behind/in the parking lot of the Buzzfeed offices?), most of these things are not illegal. You can throw a banana peel on your property, you can “loiter” on your property, and you can most definitely film anything on your property without a permit. Filming permits are generally required to film on public property (I’m sure CA law stipulates the specifics. Otherwise you would need a permit as a tourist). Certainly if you need to close a park, street, etc. Break some real laws next time. Especially things that are against the law anywhere you are (murder, theft, rape, etc.). Plus, it will make for a more exciting video post.

    • LawStudentMan

      Good! It’s about time the TSA realizes that tiny blades are not necessarily a threat. It is true the 9/11 terrorist did use box cutters that have small blades, but the problem was that no one could counter (except with shear numbers (Flight 93)). Also, it was super inconvenient if you had a harmless Swiss Army type knife on your keychain, and now you have to give it up. I personally believe that people with CWP’s should be allowed on planes w/ firearms (assuming there is reciprocity in the state you are traveling to, and conforming to other laws of that state dealing with airplanes and guns), but I’m sure that opinion will not make me very many friends on this site. Be that as it may, I think this is a good first step back to sanity.

    • LawStudentMan

      He is wearing the garbs ofaBishop (fake garbs notwithstanding). Even if he wasaleigit Bishop, he would most likely not be granted access to this pre-conclave. I’m pretty sure he would have only made it as far as roll call. Plus, it is probably safe to say that most, if not all, of the Cardinals who are eligible voters (under 80 years old) know each other. Considering there are only, give or take, 200 conclave voters. Assuming he made it through this round, the chances of him being able to sit at conclave are next to nothing. ONLY Cardinals are allowed in conclave (that means no priest, deacons, laity, etc. Save,Ithink, for any medical aid for ill Cardinals.)! Since this guy doesn’t represent himself asaCardinal, he must have thought beingaBishop was good enough. It pays to do your homework if you plan on infiltrating the conclave (or any secret meeting of state for that matter).

    • LawStudentMan

      Whoa! There is no way that they did this “experiment” inastate/city that hasahigh percentage of concealed weapon permits. If they did, then they ranahuge risk. Even if it was inaplace like NY or LA, people still have guns, and one of these people may have had one and shot the “attacker.” Ballsy move. Evenabigger dude withoutagun, but with any other object that can beaweapon, could have bashed in the “attacker’s” skull. Or at least put him in the hospital for an extended stay. Again, ballsy move.