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 

Should the North Secede from the union?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Steelrails



Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 11:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Anyone who can't see how much good we have being a united country and is willing to sacrifice all of that over the exaggerated ills they perceive is delusional. I fail to see how secession would magically solve all of one's ills and I can see numerous ills that it would create. Do you think unemployment and corruption would disappear? What would change that would substantially improve your life? Do you think utopia would ensue if you just got rid of everyone on the right/left?

I would be hesitant to predict the future of Western Civilization and democracy, but I can't see too much good. Certainly we'd see a simultaneous demise of the European project.

Most importantly we'd likely suffer serious problems in commanding foreign credit and in our currency markets. We'd go from having the greatest common market in the world to a fractured one. One can only imagine what the price of goods and essentials like oil and foodstuffs would be like, especially in the Northeast.

And I doubt any breakup of the US would go the way of the Soviet Union unless a "core" of the US remains. If Alaska and Hawaii decided to split off, that might go down relatively peacably or New York City were to declare itself a Singapore-esqe free city.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
slothrop



Joined: 03 Feb 2003

PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 11:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

edit

Last edited by slothrop on Sun Jan 06, 2013 9:04 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Unposter



Joined: 04 Jun 2006

PostPosted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 4:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Slothrop,

For the most part, I agreed and enjoyed your posts.

Steelrails,

The current Democratic party wouldn't know how to seek power... Actually, I think it is a fundamental difference between Liberals and Conservatives; Liberals fear power more. Just MHO.

I also don't think the Republicans would be against a monarchy/dictatorship if they thought they could get away with it. They certainly want to maintain continual power without any compromise with the rest of the country. I think that is what has gotten Ya-Ta Boy's panties into a twist. How do you find common ground with someone who wants to obliterate you, not work with you? Thus, Ya-Ta Boys feelings we are better off just dividing the country and letting both sides do their business in peace.

Now, I am not that excited about that but I understand where the feelings come from.

We really do need to find more common ground.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
visitorq



Joined: 11 Jan 2008

PostPosted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 5:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Unposter wrote:
I also don't think the Republicans would be against a monarchy/dictatorship if they thought they could get away with it. They certainly want to maintain continual power without any compromise with the rest of the country. I think that is what has gotten Ya-Ta Boy's panties into a twist. How do you find common ground with someone who wants to obliterate you, not work with you?

This is not the reality of the situation. The whole cliche that the Dems are reasonable and level-headed and the Reps a bunch of uncompromising fascists is only half-correct. You could basically take and any high-level Republican, stick him in a high up position in the Democrat party, and he would fit right in. And vice versa. Look at their voting records and you will see there is nary a difference between them all.

People like Ya-ta who actually buy into Left/Right paradigm are dupes of the system, and about as naive as somebody who thinks pro-wrestlers are actually the characters they portray on TV.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steelrails



Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

PostPosted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 6:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
people don't need CDS's, treasuries, bonds, stocks, and 401ks to live meaningful lives. but people have been brainwashed into believing that these imaginary things are important enough to start wars over, and force entire populations into poverty and starvation. maybe it's time for a rethink. maybe all congressmen need a good whack with a stick from a zen master. one whack for each dollar they stole by profiting from inside information.


I would submit that a general ignorance of such things and a "That money and finance stuff is boring" and "Because I don't understand it, it's not important" mentality has led to our present situation, though I agree that the system involving such things has deteriorated into the present absurdity that it now is. Financial education in the U.S. is abysmal. It's no wonder that the system is a joke when the average voter is so ignorant.

Responsible issue of treasuries and bonds is very important to a nation and to people who would seek credit on anything. Credit enables a business or a person to engage in invention or entrepreneurship in a timely fashion.

Saying "Let's just do away with stocks and bonds and that will solve our problems" is utopian and impractical. Yes, people do need to look at an alternative system because our present one is unsustainable. But the present condition of man worldwide does not allow for such utopia.

I also disagree that people have been brainwashed into believing possessions are important. Believing that that is the case is deluding oneself about human nature. Humans naturally covet possessions and seek to use such things to elevate their social status. There is something biological that makes this so.

To take a page from Breaking Bad- Everyone says money doesn't matter until they hear the words "You have cancer" or even worse "Your daughter has cancer". Then the real world hits.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
slothrop



Joined: 03 Feb 2003

PostPosted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 10:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

edit

Last edited by slothrop on Sun Jan 06, 2013 9:02 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steelrails



Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

PostPosted: Sat Aug 18, 2012 1:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
you make sense from a practical standpoint of the way the world currently functions. but your conceptual framework is still embedded in the system. maybe the reason why the system doesn't work isn't because too many people don't understand it or that a few people have made it overly complicated(this relationship is actually the reason why it DOES work as intended/IE keeping the cows content on the dairy farm while the farmers get all the milk), but rather an inherent flaw in the system itself. the things i call imaginary ARE imaginary. make no mistake about it. if you came up with a name for something that doesn't exist and then printed up a bunch of paper to sell as shares of this nonexistant thing and got money for it, and the people that bought them also got "dividends" or "interest" from them and the value of the paper went up and they too could be sold for profit, as long as other people kept throwing more and more money at it, and whole countries decided do the same thing and sell paper to other countries then that still doesn't mean there is anything "real" behind it. ultimately it is just a collective "delusion". one day the paper you hold can be worth 1 billion dollars and a week later it can be worth nothing. the only thing that changed was people's perception of value for the paper, most likely influenced by misinformation and made up statistics.


Oh I agree, that currency that is backed by "faith and credit" and not specie is a ludicrous idea.

Quote:
maybe man has been indoctrinated into thinking that any radical alternative to the way things function now will result in worse conditions or total chaos. life went on for quite a while without stocks, bonds etc... and i am not talking about some fantasy utopia that can only exist as a platonic ideal.


True, but debt and credit have been around since at least Biblical Times. The rest are just the logical extension of debt and credit.

Quote:
americans feel that way because they can't afford health care. a citizen from a country that has socialized health care wouldn't have to obsess over the money and could focus all his energy on just being with his sick daughter. or just being.


You don't think every cancer patient in nations with socialized health care receives the best state-of-the-art health care out there, do you? The fancy stuff, that costs money. And if isn't health care then its legal representation or education. In life there will come a time where something vitally important to one's self or family happens that requires money. And then all that altruistic and stoic talk about how "Money doesn't matter" goes out the window.

It has been my experience that people often say "Money doesn't matter" or "Money shouldn't matter" to lie to themselves and set themselves up a shield for their failures or lack of accomplishments. Honestly, we should say "Money does matter" but that as all humans are flawed creatures and having a good soul is not dependent upon money, to not begrudge a person should they have none.

Quote:
it is indeed a scam. does a cow have a buddha nature? MUUUUUUUU!


Perhaps your issues are religious and not political or economic.

There are two possibilities- To change the government and then hope that its values become projected upon the people. Make government fair and virtuous and then the people shall be as well!

The other is to make your people virtuous and then hope that their values become projected upon the government. A virtuous people will produce a virtuous government.

Which approach do you favor?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
slothrop



Joined: 03 Feb 2003

PostPosted: Sat Aug 18, 2012 3:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

edit

Last edited by slothrop on Sun Jan 06, 2013 9:05 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steelrails



Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

PostPosted: Sat Aug 18, 2012 4:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

As an aside, I have come to believe that what happens in small local elections is of vastly more import to a normal person than what happens at the national level. Often in local elections the people make the same, or even less money than you. They can be fairly responsive, and some of them are in such positions of banality that they would love to listen to you and do some work for you.


If I had to choose which campaign to volunteer for- US President/Senator or School Superintendent/County Engineer, I'd choose School Superintendent/County Engineer.

I could probably walk into a local diner and see the County Engineer having a cup of coffee and pick his brain. If I told him that the residents of Shady Pines Apartments were complaining about the condition of the road they live on and if he could look into it, he probably would, since the 300 people living there might remember that and vote for him the next time around.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Unposter



Joined: 04 Jun 2006

PostPosted: Sun Aug 19, 2012 1:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Personally, I find the voter supression laws being pushed by and passed by Republicans as a good example of how un-democratic the Republican Party has become and how far apart people's values are in the United States.

Again, are we witnessing the end of the Republic (allusion to the Roman Empire as the United States)?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Sun Aug 19, 2012 3:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Unposter wrote:

Again, are we witnessing the end of the Republic (allusion to the Roman Empire as the United States)?


Probably not. Although the growing tendancy of the Republicans to act as obstructionists (and anyone who says the two parties are even remotely equal in their sins in this regard is more interested in cultivating a pseudointellectual centrist image than engaging in even slightly serious analysis) might be compared in a way to similar obstructionist behavior among the Optimates, the American system leaves far less room for a Roman-style "end of the republic."

In our "Rome," the "Optimates" get their way and slowly strangle the country to death in their arrogance.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
slothrop



Joined: 03 Feb 2003

PostPosted: Sun Aug 19, 2012 10:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

edit

Last edited by slothrop on Sun Jan 06, 2013 9:01 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ya-ta Boy



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

PostPosted: Mon Aug 20, 2012 7:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

visitorq wrote:
Kuros wrote:
Ya-Ta Boy wrote:
It is time to separate. Peacefully if possible, violently if you wish.


You're a radical.

Laughing


You can fling the word 'radical' around all you want, but assertions do not make facts. They just make assertions.

From the very beginning, there have been two conceptions of the US. On the one hand, the aristocrats/plutocrats have had their 'weak-to-pathetically-weak' central government so the states could run the show so they could bleed the wealth out of the rest of us, and the nationalistic (meaning a strong national gov't) so 'We the People' could develop what we want.

As far as I can see, as long as the Brits, the Spanish, the Germans, and the Soviets had something to say (with guns), we were better off together so as to resist the outsiders.

It ain't true any more.

From the very beginning, the 'conservatives' (anti-Federalists) made an argument about a 'too-strong' national government, but that has never been the issue. The issue is should the government serve the interests of the top X% or should it serve the interests of the 'less than'?

It is very clear that the current iteration of the 'conservative' (I highly disagree with that label) crowd wishes to reassert the same old 'republican' nonsense that argued for a 'republic' argued for, or the same old Slave Power group argued for. There is no real difference.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ya-ta Boy



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

PostPosted: Mon Aug 20, 2012 7:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Probably not. Although the growing tendancy of the Republicans to act as obstructionists (and anyone who says the two parties are even remotely equal in their sins in this regard is more interested in cultivating a pseudointellectual centrist image than engaging in even slightly serious analysis) might be compared in a way to similar obstructionist behavior among the Optimates, the American system leaves far less room for a Roman-style "end of the republic."


I do not agree.

The Republicans (and their anti-Federalist) fore-runners have never agreed to this.

My current position is this: We failed to form a real union of people, north, south, east, west.

Some followed the ideal of 'a more perfect union' and others said no...states and nothing but the states, are superior (because we can grab the opportunity to shove the states' rights view down the throats of the majority).

In short, we can go on and flounder between the two views, or we can give up the silly idea that we can find a compromise when the radicals no longer want a compromise.

I reject Kuros' claim that I am a radical. I say I am a conservative. I say he and his ilk are the radicals. Let us go our way in peace. He wants a country run purely for the interests of the corporations. Fine. Let him and his political allies have it.

Just let the rest of us have our freedom.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ya-ta Boy



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

PostPosted: Mon Aug 20, 2012 8:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

As far as I can tell, the Right (in whatever denominational frothing-at-the-mouth-about-which-ever-one-is-'right' is 'right')...

Would it be all that bad to divide up the whole shebang and let the Right have their territory and let the rest of the land go its own way?

What's the problem?

You didn't want the original Constitution, you didn't want the Civil War constitution, you didn't want the New Deal...

I say, "OK".

You want your ideal 1787 Constitution. No problem. We have a different conception. You have yours.
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 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Page 3 of 9

 
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