Site Search:
 
TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Forward!
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Titus



Joined: 19 May 2012

PostPosted: Sat Nov 10, 2012 9:01 am    Post subject: Forward! Reply with quote

http://www.thatsmags.com/shanghai/article/2944/forward

Quote:
The day before the election, Der Spiegel described ďthe United States as a country that doesn't understand the signs of the times and has almost willfully -- flying in the face of all scientific knowledge -- chosen to be backward." For the magazineís staff writers, the problem was utterly straightforward. ďThe hatred of big government has reached a level in the United States that threatens the country's very existence.Ē Retrogressive forces were impeding the countryís progress by refusing to grasp the obvious identity of Leviathan and social advancement. It should now be obvious to everyone Ė even charred tea partiers gibbering shell-shocked in the ruins -- that contemporary American democracy provides all the impetus necessary to bulldoze such obstructionism aside. The State is God, and all shall bend to its will. Forward!

With the ascension of USG to godhood, a new purity is attained, and a fantastic (and Titanic) experiment progresses to a new stage. It is no longer necessary to enter into controversy with the shattered detritus of the right, henceforth all that matters is the test of strength between concentrated political motivation and the obduracy of reality itself. Which is to say: the final resistance to be overcome is the insolent idea of a reality principle, or outside. Once there is no longer any way of things that exists independently of the Stateís sovereign desire, Left Singularity is attained. This is the eschatological promise that sings its hallelujahs in every progressive breast. It translates perfectly into the colloquial chant: yes we can!

Of course, it needs to be clearly understood that Ďweí Ė now and going forward Ė means the State. Through the State we do anything and everything, which we can, if not really, then at least truly, as promised. The State is Ďusí as God. Hegel already saw all this, but it took progressive educational systems to generalize the insight. Now our time has come, or is coming. All together now: yes we can! Nothing but a brittle reactionary realism stands in our way, and that is something we can be educated out of (yes we can). We have! See our blasted enemies strewn in utter devastation before us.

The world is to be as we will it to be. Surely.


The left singularity. http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/files/2012/10/ObamaFORWARD.jpg
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
visitorq



Joined: 11 Jan 2008

PostPosted: Sat Nov 10, 2012 10:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Couldn't have said it better myself. Anytime I hear people refer to society as "we" I honestly cringe. To me it isn't simply a figure of speech, it's a whole worldview. I'm so sick and tired of collectivism. I'm tired of the promise that it's going to deliver us into paradise, when all history and all empirical evidence shows that it will deliver us into hell.

Trying to break people out of their shells and not become cynical is also a losing proposition for the most part. You might get through to a few (and it's worth trying), but most just actively love bowing down before god-government. And the more they do it, the more emasculated they become, to the point where there is nothing else for them except watching dancing with the stars on TV (and I would include the presidential debates into that category). It really does feel like we're in a zombie movie, surrounded by people who are in a trance, totally detached from reality.

As for all those creepy people holding those "Forward" signs, they seem on par with the crowd of slaves in Nineteen Eighty-Four who chant "B-B!" after their 2 minute hate session... Just add a dash of smug self-satisfaction, and you've got it. Peel back that thin layer from any hard-core progressive and what you'll find is gnashing of teeth and a vicious little control freak who would like to bite your head off.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sirius black



Joined: 04 Jun 2010

PostPosted: Sat Nov 10, 2012 11:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Due to close proximity to each other every European has a passport and pretty much everyone has done some international travel, even outside Europe is common.
Americans on the other hand rarely travel outside the counry. I have hdard various numbers like 15 to 20 percent of us having a passport.

If we traveled more and saw firsthand how things we fight against actually works elsewhere and countries like Korea who Americans look down on actually have far better infrastructure, our voting patterns and parties would be vastly different. Our foreign policy and defense spdnding wnuld be different as well.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
visitorq



Joined: 11 Jan 2008

PostPosted: Sat Nov 10, 2012 2:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

sirius black wrote:
Due to close proximity to each other every European has a passport and pretty much everyone has done some international travel, even outside Europe is common.
Americans on the other hand rarely travel outside the counry. I have hdard various numbers like 15 to 20 percent of us having a passport.

If we traveled more and saw firsthand how things we fight against actually works elsewhere and countries like Korea who Americans look down on actually have far better infrastructure, our voting patterns and parties would be vastly different. Our foreign policy and defense spdnding wnuld be different as well.


Quote:
Times have changed. ďMore Americans have passports now than ever before,Ē says Ken Chavez, spokesperson for the Bureau of Consular Affairs at the US State Department. Over one-third of the population to be exact, or nearly 110 million out of 313 million Americans.

[...]

whatever you think of the idea of American exceptionalism, America is exceptionally large. You could fit mainland France, plus Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark and Luxembourg (total about 261,000 square miles) inside of Texas (269,000 square miles) and still have room for a passel of Alps. It takes nearly an hour longer to fly between New York and LA (about 5 hours) than between Lisbon and Helsinki (about 4:10), and the spaces in between are vast and varied. To paraphrase the (oft misquoted) line from the Treasure of the Sierra Madre: ďPassports? We donít need no stinkiní passports!Ē

We didnít even need them when traveling to Canada or Mexico Ė at least until recently

http://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewbender/2012/01/30/record-number-of-americans-now-hold-passports/

I guess the real question is how many Europeans are flying around the world (to Asia etc., and not just within the Eurozone) compared to Americans? I'm guessing it's about the same. This notion that your average European is world traveler is somewhat exaggerated I think. In my own personal experience, Americans also tend to be less xenophobic than Europeans. But hey, that's just me...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Titus



Joined: 19 May 2012

PostPosted: Sun Nov 11, 2012 6:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

sirius black wrote:
Due to close proximity to each other every European has a passport and pretty much everyone has done some international travel, even outside Europe is common.
Americans on the other hand rarely travel outside the counry. I have hdard various numbers like 15 to 20 percent of us having a passport.

If we traveled more and saw firsthand how things we fight against actually works elsewhere and countries like Korea who Americans look down on actually have far better infrastructure, our voting patterns and parties would be vastly different. Our foreign policy and defense spdnding wnuld be different as well.


The above assumes that Americans have some kind of impact on the process. That's not how it works. The people in power tell us who the two acceptable candidates are to the people in power and then we all roll out of bed and pick the one that our specific TV station told us was best. Every single American could travel to utopia for a week and the electoral choices wouldn't change a lick.

Additionally, the focus on "travel" as a solution to decay is as silly and naive as the focus on education (if only we all had bachelor degrees!).

Let's assume you're right and the American wanders out into the world to see how things get done. Will he discover limp-wristed leftists working to make the world a better place?

http://isteve.blogspot.com/2012/11/how-world-really-works.html

Or would he discover a world full of right wing extremists that make Le Pen look like a kind, compassionate internationalist?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sirius black



Joined: 04 Jun 2010

PostPosted: Sun Nov 11, 2012 7:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The site visitorg states states the rise is mainly due to Americans having to get a passport to travel to places like Mexico and Canada when we didn't need it prior. Not that we are traveling to other locales more. Which makes sense in a post 911 world.

Answering Titus' question what we would see is the lie that limp left leaning Europeans are actually better at some things.

What we would see is how health care is distributed in other countries much more effeciently, cheaper and better than America does.

What we would see in countries like Korea is an investment in infrastructure that is much better than ours.

What we woud see is that allowing gays to marry doesn't affect your heterosexual right to marry.

What you would have seen much earlier than we loosening our rules are gays serving openly in the military in other countries with no affect on readiness.

There are many things t be proud of in America. You appreciate it more in a lot of way swhen you travel internationally but you are also painfully aware of what we are doing wrong and we can see ways to improve but we are holding ourselves back due to ignorance or believing the lies in the media or from politicians who are paid by corporations to have us demonize things that could advance us and make our lives better.

I've rarely met a person who traveled extensively, especially to Europe and Asia who didn't come back thinking that we are doing some things wrong in America.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
visitorq



Joined: 11 Jan 2008

PostPosted: Sun Nov 11, 2012 10:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

sirius black wrote:
The site visitorg states states the rise is mainly due to Americans having to get a passport to travel to places like Mexico and Canada when we didn't need it prior. Not that we are traveling to other locales more. Which makes sense in a post 911 world.

No, you missed the point. The point is that Europeans are the not the "world travelers" you make them out to be. They have passports so they can travel within the Eurozone. It would be like if you needed a passport to go between New York, Illinois, Florida, Texas, and California. Then all or nearly all Americans would have passports. Bearing that in mind, your point is actually pretty much moot.

Quote:
I've rarely met a person who traveled extensively, especially to Europe and Asia who didn't come back thinking that we are doing some things wrong in America.

I've rarely met a person in America that thought we aren't doing some things wrong in America. You sure as hell don't have to travel the world to see that...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sirius black



Joined: 04 Jun 2010

PostPosted: Sun Nov 11, 2012 9:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Titus wrote:
The above assumes that Americans have some kind of impact on the process. That's not how it works. The people in power tell us who the two acceptable candidates are to the people in power and then we all roll out of bed and pick the one that our specific TV station told us was best.


You are right. This happens most of the time. However, once in a while, the people's wishes does run counter to the party bosses and media darlings.

Obama was such a case. Hillary was a shoe in. I heard that Obama was actually looking towards a 2016 election and didn't expect to win but that's a story, not sure if its true.

Anyway, the Democratic machine was firmly behind Hillary. The CBC (Congressional Black Caucus) did the unprecedented thing and suppored Hillary instead of one of its own.

Obama's primary wins were totally grassroots against the interests of the elites.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Patrick Bateman



Joined: 21 Apr 2009
Location: Lost in Translation

PostPosted: Sun Nov 11, 2012 11:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

sirius black wrote:

What we would see is how health care is distributed in other countries much more effeciently, cheaper and better than America does.


The only positive thing I've heard about American healthcare from an American is, "You can get the best medical care in the world in the U.S." And it is unconditionally followed by the statement, "If you have the right insurance." Americans are not proud of their healthcare and know that it needs to be reworked. The issue is how is that financed.

sirius black wrote:

What we would see in countries like Korea is an investment in infrastructure that is much better than ours.


South Korea isn't even the size of California. That is a completely moot comparison.

sirius black wrote:

What we woud see is that allowing gays to marry doesn't affect your heterosexual right to marry.


11 countries allow same-sex marriages. That's less than 6% of countries.

sirius black wrote:

What you would have seen much earlier than we loosening our rules are gays serving openly in the military in other countries with no affect on readiness.


A strange point to mention. I don't see how a tourist will notice that. Do other countries have gay soldiers where special uniforms and march around tourist sports performing readiness drills?

sirius black wrote:

There are many things t be proud of in America. You appreciate it more in a lot of way swhen you travel internationally but you are also painfully aware of what we are doing wrong and we can see ways to improve but we are holding ourselves back due to ignorance or believing the lies in the media or from politicians who are paid by corporations to have us demonize things that could advance us and make our lives better.

I've rarely met a person who traveled extensively, especially to Europe and Asia who didn't come back thinking that we are doing some things wrong in America.


It sounds to me like critical and objective thinking, fueled by easy access to information, is the key. Travel has nothing to do with it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
visitorq



Joined: 11 Jan 2008

PostPosted: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

sirius black wrote:
Obama's primary wins were totally grassroots against the interests of the elites.

Obama is a grassroots candidate? Is that why Goldman-Sachs and JPMorgan-Chase were his top campaign contributors? You think he would have had a chance in hell of being elected if he hadn't been bankrolled by Wall Street and backed by the mainstream media Rolling Eyes

There is nothing grassroots about Obama. He is a Wall Street puppet who was placed into power. If you want to see a real grassroots candidate, look at Ron Paul or Gary Johnson.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sirius black



Joined: 04 Jun 2010

PostPosted: Tue Nov 13, 2012 5:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Patrick Bateman wrote:

It sounds to me like critical and objective thinking, fueled by easy access to information, is the key. Travel has nothing to do with it.


1. Americans travel in ever increasing numbers for Ďmedical tourismí. The best medical care in the world is a crock from the AMA and others to justify the prices. About 2/3 of all personal bankruptcies are due to medical costs. Thatís a crisis.
2. Its not moot. Size plays a role but size does not stop a country from having a good infrastructure. The fact is that America has long stopped spending money to improve its infrastructure. Obamaís former Chief of Staff, Emmanuel is now mayor of Chicago and has made some innovate ways of improving that cityís crumbling infrastructure. A smaller size may make it easier but size doesnít make it impossible. America spends a fifth of its money on military and for that we get to brag that we have a bigger military budget than the next 10 countries combined. Its not necessary.
Show how Americaís size makes it impossible to have better infrastructure (high speed rail, wired for the internet coast to coast, bridges and tunnels that arenít near collapse) and Iíll accept your point.

3. You missed the point. The countries that have same sex marriages arenít crumbling socially. The reasoning against same sex marriage by the right wing if you strip away all the rhetoric is a religious one. The same with abortion. Itís a religious issue to the right at its core. Socially, how does having two men or women affect you or I? As for my mentioning gay soldiers serving openly in other countries, the point is that it doesnít affect military readiness or effectiveness. The same argument was made by people when Truman integrated the military in í48. White soldiers they said would refuse to live in the same barracks and use the same bathrooms as Black soldiers.
4. Travel has tons to do with it. Americans know very little about the outside world. Americans view of foreign policy is almost completely limited to what the politicians say. I guarantee you if more Americans traveled to Cuba (if it was allowed), Israel, the middle east, etc. we would see that our foreign policy stances were either naÔve or totally unnecessary and in some cases incendiary. Iíve known Jews who traveled to Israel and come back with a more progressive view of the Palestinian situation. Our foreign policy stances regarding Israel and Cuba are based purely on the Presidential election and getting the Florida votes. It has nothing to do with pragmatism and realpolitk.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sirius black



Joined: 04 Jun 2010

PostPosted: Tue Nov 13, 2012 5:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

visitorq wrote:
sirius black wrote:
Obama's primary wins were totally grassroots against the interests of the elites.

Obama is a grassroots candidate? Is that why Goldman-Sachs and JPMorgan-Chase were his top campaign contributors? You think he would have had a chance in hell of being elected if he hadn't been bankrolled by Wall Street and backed by the mainstream media Rolling Eyes

There is nothing grassroots about Obama. He is a Wall Street puppet who was placed into power. If you want to see a real grassroots candidate, look at Ron Paul or Gary Johnson.


Obamaís initial campaign was grassroots. Goldman Sachs and Wall Street did not get onboard UNTIL he won a few primaries and that he would get the nomination. The money was behind Hillary. Thatís a fact. Even the Congressional Black Caucus didnít support Obama. They supported Hillary. The Clintons had immense political capital. Thatís a fact. Obamaís grassroots campaign in Iowa where his campaign made personal visits and personal phone calls and kept in touch and had the best database compilation got him his initial win. Thatís a FACT.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
visitorq



Joined: 11 Jan 2008

PostPosted: Tue Nov 13, 2012 7:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

sirius black wrote:
visitorq wrote:
sirius black wrote:
Obama's primary wins were totally grassroots against the interests of the elites.

Obama is a grassroots candidate? Is that why Goldman-Sachs and JPMorgan-Chase were his top campaign contributors? You think he would have had a chance in hell of being elected if he hadn't been bankrolled by Wall Street and backed by the mainstream media Rolling Eyes

There is nothing grassroots about Obama. He is a Wall Street puppet who was placed into power. If you want to see a real grassroots candidate, look at Ron Paul or Gary Johnson.


Obamaís initial campaign was grassroots. Goldman Sachs and Wall Street did not get onboard UNTIL he won a few primaries and that he would get the nomination. The money was behind Hillary. Thatís a fact. Even the Congressional Black Caucus didnít support Obama. They supported Hillary. The Clintons had immense political capital. Thatís a fact. Obamaís grassroots campaign in Iowa where his campaign made personal visits and personal phone calls and kept in touch and had the best database compilation got him his initial win. Thatís a FACT.

Obama-as-demagogue proved that he had some talent at the outset. Beyond that, he would have had ZERO chance in hell of ever becoming a viable candidate if the establishment hadn't showered him in money and media publicity. That is a fact.

Moreover, we know (we don't have to guess) that Obama owes everything he has to Wall Street, because his entire administration was composed of people directly representing Wall Street's interests. He gave them $13 trillion in bailouts and didn't prosecute a single one of the crooks responsible! Obama is nothing more than teleprompter-reading phony who is useful to the establishment insofar as he is a highly effective liar who is able to make people think he is sincere (much like Clinton). He has no actual power beyond this.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steelrails



Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

PostPosted: Tue Nov 13, 2012 9:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's not like Obama came out of nowhere. Harvard Law Review gets you noticed. Chicago politics gets you noticed. 4 years in the Senate with a bunch of media buzz gets you noticed. People saw the potential.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sirius black



Joined: 04 Jun 2010

PostPosted: Tue Nov 13, 2012 9:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

visitorq wrote:
sirius black wrote:
visitorq wrote:
sirius black wrote:
Obama's primary wins were totally grassroots against the interests of the elites.

Obama is a grassroots candidate? Is that why Goldman-Sachs and JPMorgan-Chase were his top campaign contributors? You think he would have had a chance in hell of being elected if he hadn't been bankrolled by Wall Street and backed by the mainstream media Rolling Eyes

There is nothing grassroots about Obama. He is a Wall Street puppet who was placed into power. If you want to see a real grassroots candidate, look at Ron Paul or Gary Johnson.


Obamaís initial campaign was grassroots. Goldman Sachs and Wall Street did not get onboard UNTIL he won a few primaries and that he would get the nomination. The money was behind Hillary. Thatís a fact. Even the Congressional Black Caucus didnít support Obama. They supported Hillary. The Clintons had immense political capital. Thatís a fact. Obamaís grassroots campaign in Iowa where his campaign made personal visits and personal phone calls and kept in touch and had the best database compilation got him his initial win. Thatís a FACT.

Obama-as-demagogue proved that he had some talent at the outset. Beyond that, he would have had ZERO chance in hell of ever becoming a viable candidate if the establishment hadn't showered him in money and media publicity. That is a fact.

Moreover, we know (we don't have to guess) that Obama owes everything he has to Wall Street, because his entire administration was composed of people directly representing Wall Street's interests. He gave them $13 trillion in bailouts and didn't prosecute a single one of the crooks responsible! Obama is nothing more than teleprompter-reading phony who is useful to the establishment insofar as he is a highly effective liar who is able to make people think he is sincere (much like Clinton). He has no actual power beyond this.


Youíre either not understanding what Iím saying or ignoring it.
No one is disputing he doesnít have Wall Street or didnít have Wall Street money behind him. What I am saying is a FACT is that he did not have Wall Street money initially. He got their attention and everyone elseís from an initial grassroots campaign that won him Iowa.
Show me where he got Wall Street money initially?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 1 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2013 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International