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: Mon Aug 20, 2012 12:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, lets rid ourselves of the 1%. It's not like another 1% won't rise up to take their place. When has a nation ever been run by anyone but the 1%?

Stalin? Castro? Mao? Saddam? Pol Pot? Nehru? Hitler? Jefferson? Madison? Lincoln? Roosevelt? Reagan? Obama?

They may start out as revolutionaries, but inevitably a new "ruling class" gets formed. There is nothing in 99%erism that suggests they have a viable alternative system to preventing such measures.

As for right-wing separatists, replace 1% with "immoral behavior" or any of man's faults. Getting rid of the liberals isn't going to create some paradise.

The belief in Utopia is a greater delusion than any TV commercial or "corporate/media brainwashing"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004

PostPosted: Mon Aug 20, 2012 3:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ya-ta Boy wrote:
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.


Google's definition of radical:

Quote:
Noun:
A person who advocates thorough or complete political or social reform.


Yes, Northern separation from the Union, which you've advocated in the quote above, constitutes complete political or social reform. You're a radical.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Unposter



Joined: 04 Jun 2006

PostPosted: Mon Aug 20, 2012 4:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Let's stop all this discussion about labeling. Labeling is a side issue and it gets us nowhere. Who cares?

Personally, I think what Ya-Ta is getting at is that if the Republicans only want a government that caters to 1%ers and social conservatives and the Democrats want a government that offers policies for all 100% (pissing off the bottom 10% and the upper 10% for some odd reason) and social liberals, how do we find common ground?

One take would be to just say that this "fundamental difference" really is a fundamental difference and we should just form two different governments, each based on the tenents of each fundamental difference. It would be like a compromise between states rights and federalism.

Another take is we need to find common ground, which to me is what the Democrats are doing: Crony Capitalism for the top 1% and social programs for the bottom 50% (maybe this could be enlarged).

(I mean this is not the Democratic Pary of my parents generation; it was much, much more economically liberal, even in the 1980s then it is now.)

Anyway, if anyone has any idea either why the fundamental difference is good for the country or how to bridge it, I am personally more than willing to listen and I think it would make a much more interesting discussion.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Mon Aug 20, 2012 4:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ya-ta Boy wrote:
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.


The evolution of the United States over time -- even in the face of violent opposition -- has been towards unification, not division, because that's what the system naturally entails. When Kuros talks about devolving power back to the states, he's on the wrong side of social and historic forces; the Constitution, as designed, has a certain gravity which is inclined to attract power to the federal level over time, and this is a good thing so long as the process is managed wisely (which obviously it often has not been, but simply foregoing the process of federal empowerment is not a real, valid option). When you talk about termination of the union, you are on the wrong side of those forces as well. People here talk about the fall of the Soviet Union, but the Soviet Union was a reasonably short-lived entity built of peoples who inhabitted those lands for generations before its formation. The states of the Union simply cannot be directly compared to that.

Ya-ta Boy wrote:
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 feel like you're thinking too much in the moment. You aren't wrong about the cultural divide in America, but you're being hasty in your approach to resolving it.

Ya-ta Boy wrote:
I reject Kuros' claim that I am a radical.


I hate to say it, because I am sympathetic to your frustrations, but when you started talking about it being alright for hundreds of thousands of people to be killed because you're upset about Republican obstruction in the legislature and want it eliminated by any means necessary? That was extremely radical Ya-ta.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Titus



Joined: 19 May 2012

PostPosted: Mon Aug 20, 2012 5:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ya-ta Boy wrote:

However #2, it has become increasingly clear that the Right has moved into a position where compromise is not one of their ideals.


What specifically are you referring to? Specifically.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004

PostPosted: Mon Aug 20, 2012 7:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fox wrote:

The evolution of the United States over time -- even in the face of violent opposition -- has been towards unification, not division, because that's what the system naturally entails. When Kuros talks about devolving power back to the states, he's on the wrong side of social and historic forces


Well, I prefer to describe it as 'evolving' power to the States. After all, many jurisdictions today possess Federalist systems, including 3 out of 4 of the BRICs.

But we can table that discussion for another thread.

Unposter wrote:
Personally, I think what Ya-Ta is getting at is that if the Republicans only want a government that caters to 1%ers and social conservatives and the Democrats want a government that offers policies for all 100% (pissing off the bottom 10% and the upper 10% for some odd reason) and social liberals, how do we find common ground?


Its a bullshit premise. Both the Tea Party 1.0 and Occupy were movements against gov't capture. They only emphasized different aspects of gov't capture.

This isn't Democrats versus Republicans. Its great crony capitalism versus off-the-rails crony capitalism. Its an out-of-touch and detached administration versus senseless obedience to corporate masterdom.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
comm



Joined: 22 Jun 2010

PostPosted: Mon Aug 20, 2012 7:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fox wrote:
When Kuros talks about devolving power back to the states, he's on the wrong side of social and historic forces; the Constitution, as designed, has a certain gravity which is inclined to attract power to the federal level over time...

That's only once you start ignoring the 10th Amendment, which the central-authority types were rather quick to do.


Ya-ta Boy wrote:
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.

I agree completely, once you realize that you've got the goals of the two groups switched. Controlling a geographically and socially distant Federal government is far easier and more profitable than trying to control dozens of State governments who's politicians are geographically and socially much closer to their constituents.

In any case, I fully support your proposition. It would be much easier to simply give power to the States from the Federal government so that NY can do its thing and Maine can do its thing and Texas can do its thing without having a war... but that's not good enough for you.
So lets break it all up, it would have very nearly the same effect in most States anyway.

Oh, and if it goes through, you'll finally find out just how bought and paid for your liberal demigods are Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
slothrop



Joined: 03 Feb 2003

PostPosted: Mon Aug 20, 2012 8:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

edit

Last edited by slothrop on Sun Jan 06, 2013 9:00 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Mon Aug 20, 2012 9:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

comm wrote:
Fox wrote:
When Kuros talks about devolving power back to the states, he's on the wrong side of social and historic forces; the Constitution, as designed, has a certain gravity which is inclined to attract power to the federal level over time...


That's only once you start ignoring the 10th Amendment, which the central-authority types were rather quick to do.


The 10th Amendment is no where near as maligned as a certain segment of the population likes to pretend, and most of the talk about the 10th Amendment really amounts to belly-aching over either losing legislative battles within the context of entirely constitutional federal legislation, or losing interpretive battles within the context of entirely valid judicial reading of the Constitution.

Having a difference of opinion about how to interpret the Constitution is a valid and reasonable source of frustration, but make no mistake: Ron Paul is not the "Constitution Pope," his specific, heavily-ideological interpretation of that text is not the final word on the matter, and the nation operating under a somewhat more expansive interpretation of the powers granted to the federal government by the Constitution than you would like to see utilized is not equivalent to ignoring the 10th Amendment.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Unposter



Joined: 04 Jun 2006

PostPosted: Tue Aug 21, 2012 1:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

To be honest, I am not really sure what everyone is talking about (I think I have some idea but to be honest I am not really sure).

Anyway, the way the current system seems to be set up, the U.S. alternates between two visions of the country. We let one vision dominate for 4 to 8 (maybe even 12 or more years) and then when things go bad (and they always do), we switch to the alternative vision for 4 to 8 (even 12 or more years as the cases may be).

Somewhere, within the above framework, we have a balance of power. As long as the opposition has at least one check on the majority, it requires some kind of compromise between these two forces.

Some people call this a balance of power; others call it gridlock; and others call it both.

The problem is when one of these forces becomes significantly more powerful than the other. That is when the corruption really sinks in.

So, we are better off when these two forces are deadlocked and can easilly check the other.

But, I personally think the problem is more on an educational/moral plane. I think we have become too atomistic, self-interested and hyper-competitive. We have stopped caring about our neighbors.

We only care about winning, which in of itself isn't bad, but it is the winning at all costs, which is costing us too much. I think the current Republic drive for power is rooted in this winning at all costs mentality. I think the trading of derivities is also based on this winning at all costs; we don't care who we hurt in the process mentality.

We have to start caring about each other (again?); we need to find common ground; we need to realize that we are all Americans and that we all need a helping hand.

The question, again, is how do we come together?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Unposter



Joined: 04 Jun 2006

PostPosted: Tue Aug 21, 2012 1:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kuros, for what it is worth, if I understand you right, and I am not sure I do, I think you misunderstand the occupy movement, though they have no particular mission (statement).

My understanding is that the people originally involved in Occupy are upset because they feel that the current economic problems were caused by Wall Street but that Wall Street was not only neither punnished nor reformed but propped up, while the victims of the Great Recession, for the lack of a better term, Main Street, was left to wither.

I think this is different than your term of "government capture." While the Occupy movement does not claim to possess a political orientation, I think one can interpret that as more federal control over Wall Street, at least its excesses.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004

PostPosted: Tue Aug 21, 2012 4:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Unposter wrote:

My understanding is that the people originally involved in Occupy are upset because they feel that the current economic problems were caused by Wall Street but that Wall Street was not only neither punnished nor reformed but propped up, while the victims of the Great Recession, for the lack of a better term, Main Street, was left to wither.


That is correct.

Quote:
I think this is different than your term of "government capture." While the Occupy movement does not claim to possess a political orientation, I think one can interpret that as more federal control over Wall Street, at least its excesses.


Yes, the Federales should exert more control over Wall Street, as many of the banksters committed Federal crimes. But because the banksters have contributed so much to the Obama administration and powerful Democrats (Chuck Schumer), they get a pass. This is gov't capture by Wall Street.

Please note that gov't does not have to become big or expensive to enforce simple and straightforward laws (unfortunately Dodd-Frank is a complex maze built for Wall Street to game). The justice department and Article III courts will never amount to a drain on the U.S. Treasury. But the bailouts and Fannie/Freddie Mac will.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Unposter



Joined: 04 Jun 2006

PostPosted: Wed Aug 22, 2012 3:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, I guess no one has any suggestions on how to find common ground. Maybe, we aren't much better than the politicians in Washington and Ya-Ta is right, there isn't much left to do except call the whole thing a failure...

Somebody give me a ray of hope, please!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ya-ta Boy



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

PostPosted: Wed Aug 22, 2012 8:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I suppose you could be right when you say I'm arguing for a radical solution. Division is radical. However, I would argue there is radical and then there is radical. Degrees. Levels. I contend I am defending the least radical solution.

Titus:
Ya-ta Boy wrote:

However #2, it has become increasingly clear that the Right has moved into a position where compromise is not one of their ideals.


What specifically are you referring to? Specifically.

I am referring to when Boehner/McConnell said they didn't believe in it and preferred not to even use the word. I am referring to when the freshmen class of '11 said they didn't believe in it.

Anybody read Charles P. Pierce?

We Are Two Countries Now. It's the Space Between That's Scary. There Are Guns There. And No Laws.

They have a perfectly formed universe, the sovereign citizens do, with its own legal forms and its own history and, in some cases, its own religion as well, and that's what makes them an example of something a bit more profound than simply a group of criminals with a penchant for cop-killing. (And, not for nothing, didn't the whole country once lose its shit because Ice-T just sang about cop-killers?) There is a lot of talk these days about how the country is "polarized," as though we are simply in a period in which we all just really disagree with each other on most of the vital issues of the day. This is an oddly comforting formulation, because we all know that periods of polarization pass, and that, somewhere out there is a consensus within which we all eventually will abide. I think it's much more serious than that. I think it's much more serious even than calling our divisions "tribalist," which seems to be the adjective [i]du jour these days. I think we are looking at an 1850's of the political mind. I think we are two countries, each with its own history, and laws, and language, and religion, and their own mass media to amplify all those things. But only one of these two countries of the mind is tightly organized and capable of moving as a single unit. I think things like the sovereign-citizens movement are merely a particularly vivid example of this.


[/i]

I think what bothers me is that a) there is so little discussion of events like this, and b) there is no room for real discussion and resolution with that kind of radical reinterpretation of what 'nation', 'freedom' and 'community' mean.

Late last winter Pierce wrote a beautiful essay that comes about as close as anything I've seen recently that expresses what I think.

I Dream of Common Wealth

We owe each other a debt. We owe each other an obligation. That is the thing to which we truly commit ourselves if we follow our Constitution. It is a charter that enumerates individual liberties, but it is not a license for unbridled greed or reckless political solipsism. We owe each other a debt and we owe each other an obligation, and because of these fundamental American imperatives, there are things that we own in common with each other, and that we are obliged to protect for our posterity. The water. The trees. The wild places in the land. We lose sight of these truths sometimes. Acceleration is the great danger. We lost sight of these truths during the Industrial Age, when the accelerated pace of new manufacturing caught the country by surprise. It was only the long, slow rise of progressive politics that brought these basic truths back to the national mind, and we got the national parks out of it. We have lost sight of these truths again, in the Information Age, when even more accelerated technologies caught us by surprise. It is an open question still whether we will be able to recover that which we have forgotten.

The political system can never catch up on its own. (Believe it or not, the power of corporate money in the late 1800's was even more universal than it is now.) It must be made to catch up by citizens who demand that it respond once again to its basic imperative to protect those things that it must hold in commonwealth for us. At the turn of the last century, that happened because there was room in the Republican party for the Progressive causes that answered those demands, a process that truly didn't end until the 1950's. Today, I am less sure that the room for these answering politics exist any more. The corporate money is seeking to fasten onto our democracy a permanent oligarchy, and it is simultaneously trying to put in place such laws as to make any serious threat to that oligarchy impossible. Most of the infrastructure of this effort is already in place. Where, in either party, is the space wherein a serious political challenge to the oligarchy can rise?

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/believe-in-america-7685927#ixzz23vOQrbvQ

The last time we were in this situation, the world was very different and far more dangerous. The Brits and the French were running around enslaving half the world to serve their imperial interests.

That is no longer the case. We can safely divide into two or more political units and each can develop its political ideals as it sees fit.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
geldedgoat



Joined: 05 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Wed Aug 22, 2012 2:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

comm wrote:
In any case, I fully support your proposition. It would be much easier to simply give power to the States from the Federal government so that NY can do its thing and Maine can do its thing and Texas can do its thing without having a war... but that's not good enough for you.
So lets break it all up, it would have very nearly the same effect in most States anyway.


It's hilariously ironic that someone like Ya-ta Boy would love to make fun of one group's aversion to too much power accumulated by a central government yet has come to essentially the same conclusion himself... only his involves murdering hundreds of thousands directly and probably much more indirectly by gelding our ability to create a functional national defense. Amazing.
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 4 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