|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
 Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 5:32 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Unposter wrote: |
1. I like mnjetter's line about people not coming here for intellectual discussion, they come here for entertainment. That is a good insight. |
Really? Its an obnoxious cheap shot at regulars from an outsider, or maybe from a lurker. It also presumes this forum has great pretensions of being high brow, which it doesn't really. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 6:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Unposter wrote: |
A. "Who do you think runs the government? Poor people?" - Steelrails.
While to a certain extent, true today, it is not an eternal truth. Power and objective of policies are relative to the people in power and the ideas and policies they govern by. In other words, we have a democracy. The only reason why our current politics tilt to the rich are because the people have allowed it to. It wasn't the case, in other historical time periods, for example, FDR and to a certain extent during Kennedy and Johnson, though I do want to stress to a certain extent. And, regardless of the objective, government does/should play a role in regulating the economic system even between elites. The U.S. government has been moving away from this with disasterous results, i.e. the current economic crisis and the numerous banking scandals that have been plagueing us since at least the S&L scandal of the late 80s/early 90s, which was one of the biggest causes of U.S. debt.
|
FDR? The guy who manipulated us into WWII? You do realize that his "pro-poor" policies were an attempt by the establishment to avoid a Communist revolution, right?
Kennedy? Johnson? The son of a bootlegger? A Texan who lusted for power?
| Quote: |
This is just scary. I don't know what you are going on about here but if you look intellectual/scientific development over the ages, even the reforms of government and economy, that is simply not true.
|
Like our clean hands on our US Space program? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 7:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Unposter wrote: |
Too much to say, too little time.
1. I like mnjetter's line about people not coming here for intellectual discussion, they come here for entertainment. That is a good insight. |
Ok, thanks for letting us know noble one. Glad to know you have higher aspirations than the rest of us. Good luck finding that internet forum/discussion that matches you're looking for.
| Quote: |
| 3. Bush, like many ideologues, found that reality is different than the fantasy of his ideals and pushed policies that he would not have supported before he was president. I think most (probably all) ideologues will discover this when they actually have to govern. |
You think Bush was an ideologue? Really? How so? What made him any different than the rest of our presidents? I'm curious.
| Quote: |
| The U.S. government has been moving away from this with disasterous results, i.e. the current economic crisis and the numerous banking scandals that have been plagueing us since at least the S&L scandal of the late 80s/early 90s, which was one of the biggest causes of U.S. debt. |
Not to nitpick, but I don't think the S&L scandal was one of the biggest causes of US debt. I think it was more Reagan jacking up the military's budget and other government expenditures. The S&L bailout was a drop in the ocean compared to what happened in 2008 (and hell, even compared to the federal government budget). Anyway, I am not disagreeing with your point, but I would say the problem from the S&L scandal is we didn't implement policies to ensure there wasn't a repeat, not the cost.
| Quote: |
B. "Sometimes human beings are so dumb, in order to bring about social good you need Vader-esqe Republican policies that manipulate schmoes into doing something for the better." - Steelrails.
This is just scary. I don't know what you are going on about here but if you look intellectual/scientific development over the ages, even the reforms of government and economy, that is simply not true.
Saying that we were better off having Hitler because it taught us that racism was wrong (which is akin to what you are saying) is quite demeaning to the millions who died because of it; minimumly, it is an unnecessary waste of life to learn a lesson.
|
You're really bringing up Hitler?
Anyway, what's not true? Both Japan and Germany totally flip flopped. They are incredibly pacifist now. The switch is quite remarkable.The EU just won a freaking nobel peace prize! You use the word demean. That's a pessimistic way of viewing things. At least something positive came from the greatest horror that this world has seen. What if Hitler would have won? Now THAT would have been a true waste of life.
And just to make it clear, I'm not saying WWII was a good thing or necessary for long term peace in Europe, far from it. I don't mean to speak for stealrails, but I just interpreted it as making lemonade out of lemons. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 7:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
Kennedy? Johnson? The son of a bootlegger? A Texan who lusted for power?
|
Joseph Kennedy wasn't a bootlegger. He was no saint and I don't know what stuff he was up to, but he wasn't a bootlegger. At least according to Robert Caro (LBJ's biographer) and Daniel Okrent (author of a history on prohibition "Last Call"). It's not to say he didn't profit from prohibition, just that he didn't engage in the illegal liquor trade.
Regardless, who cares? That's irrelevant to JFK anyway. Walgreens is walgreens because of prohibition. Ditto with the canadian company Seagrams and the BV winery in California. Don't see anyone criticizing them for taking advantage of the situation at the time.
And LBJ lusting for power? That's a bit simplistic. Sure he did, but so did many other Presidents. LBJ did more for African Americans than any President other than Lincoln. Why? Because he could and thought it was the right thing to do (honestly- at least when he was Prez). He also did more for the poor than any President except maybe FDR. Why? One significant reason was because he had been dirt poor growing up.
He had many, many faults (hello Vietnam!) and played a huge role in the worst part of modern American politics (he was funded by big oil interests and helped make KBR what it is today), but when he was President, he did fight for the poor out of conviction and he was arguably the best President at getting legislation passed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 11:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
And LBJ lusting for power? That's a bit simplistic. Sure he did, but so did many other Presidents. LBJ did more for African Americans than any President other than Lincoln. Why? Because he could and thought it was the right thing to do (honestly- at least when he was Prez). He also did more for the poor than any President except maybe FDR. Why? One significant reason was because he had been dirt poor growing up.
|
LBJ rigged elections to become senator and quite likely had a hand in killing JFK.
If the rich would have voted him in he would have done so.
| Quote: |
| LBJ did more for African Americans than any President other than Lincoln. Why? Because he could and thought it was the right thing to do (honestly- at least when he was Prez). |
So much so that he totally stopped the wiretapping of MLK, oh wait...
You do realize that Johnson loved to drop N Bombs left and right, right? But he's a politician and like any good politician he does what is in his own best interests.
Saying LBJ loved the poor and blacks is like saying Richard Nixon loved China, the environment, and women's rights. Just because you champion some legislation doesn't mean that you're a noble person.
But, that being said, I think LBJ was a great politician because he was effective and ruthless. Ideally, I wish my politicians were some fantastical pillars of morality and courage. But reality dictates that they are scum. If that's the case, I want my politician to be better than anyone else. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unposter
Joined: 04 Jun 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 2:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Of all the things I wrote, the one about Mnjetter was not the one that I thought would create the most anguish. While I find intellectual discussion entertaining, I really do come here for the entertainment regardless of whether there is intellectual discussion or not. If you, for some unknown reason, see that as a slight, it was not intended; I just thought Mnjetter's response was a cogent response at the criticism for starting this thread - an idea which I certainly wouldn't have expressed - heck even some of my best friends are republicans and they certainly aren't stupid - a little misguided in their politics in my opinion - but I certainly wouldn't call them stupid. But, despite the poor taste of the title of the thread, it has become a rather interesting discussion, don't you think?
Steelrails,
I absolutely agree that one of FDR's motivation was to prevent a communist revolution; that is my reading of history as well.
I could care less about JFK's father's profession.
LBJ was a very flawed man and President but I agree with Bucheon Bum's assertion that he did more for African-Americans than any other President since Lincoln and he did more for poor people (out of respect for continuing JFK's policies) than any other President since FDR.
Bucheon Bum,
There is a danger to making lemonade out of lemons for extreme tragic events becuase it can encourage them. Many Jews refused to acknowledge the medical research done on them by the Nazis in the extermination camps because of this fear. I think this is the right idea. We have to be very careful about recognizing the "positive" side to extreme tragedies. Another example would be some British colonial apologists who claimed that British colonialism at least lead to the building of infrastructure and the teaching of Chrisitian morality and political democracy. Others would argue that it was at a very high price considering the lack of political freedom, the lives destroyed and the people who died. I think such comments apologizing for colonialism are insulting. Bad things were done and we should just leave it at that, otherwise we may rationalize that it was a positive, which is the "spin" that Steelrails or as Jon Stewart likes to say, the polish to the turd, that was Bush's policies. I don't mean anything personal; I just disagree with Steelrails sentiment and I explained why. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mnjetter
Joined: 21 Feb 2012
Location: Seoul, S. Korea
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 3:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Really? Its an obnoxious cheap shot at regulars from an outsider, or maybe from a lurker. It also presumes this forum has great pretensions of being high brow, which it doesn't really. |
I think I would count more as a newbie than outsider or lurker. I've only been a member since February, which is pretty good for some forums, but looking at the join times of many people here, seems to be one of the most recent. But I've posted nearly every day for a few months now, so I'm hardly a lurker. Lurkers hang out without saying anything, and I joined pretty much the moment I found out about the forums.
I don't understand how my statement presumes that this forum has pretensions of being high brow. I was specifically telling visitorq that it doesn't, lol.
I also find it interesting that my post (at least once Unposter mentioned it) got so much attention. It wasn't intended as a "cheap shot at regulars," but rather a mild reminder to one specific poster (who I otherwise agreed with) that there have been much crazier and more "waste of space" threads than this that don't get scoffed at simply for existing, because that's what the forum is here for!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Privateer
Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Location: Easy Street.
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 3:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| 1) The 10 poorest states thing is a bit of a stretch to call "Republican" Those states were dominated by the Democrats through the 60s and retained a strong Democratic influence into the early 90s. While those states might have been conservative socially, they were more progressive economically. |
As I understand it the 60s was a watershed in American politics because the Democrats threw in with the civil rights movement and thereby 'lost the south'. Really this bit of history doesn't make it any less true that the 10 poorest states *today* are Republican.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| One might also look at the Democratic state and city governments that are going bankrupt. |
Fair enough, but if they're going bankrupt through public spending, and that public spending contributes to the increased prosperity of Democratic states, isn't that a good thing?
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
| A less intrusive government in economics just makes it easier for rich people to take advantage of poor people. |
que? And a more intrusive government doesn't? Who do you think runs the government? Poor people? |
Yes, when Republicans argue for a less intrusive government in economics, of course they really mean less support for ordinary people, and more support for the owners of the country.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
| 9 out of 10 of most dangerous states for crime are republican |
I'm willing to bet that 9/10 most dangerous cities for crime are Democratic. |
Fair enough. But the lack of a social safety net and the withdrawal of police services for poor areas is an obvious structural cause of crime and a hallmark of neoliberal thinking.
| Steelrails wrote: |
And just food for thought- Who has been better for the environment- W. Bush or Al Gore? The answer might not be as obvious as you think. Think which one has actually persuaded people to change their energy consumption habits. That's right, Bush. Now this is because of his terrible foreign policy and Iraq debacle as well as disaster prone oil refineries and gutting of FEMA. But through sheer ineptitude (or evilness if you think Cheney is in charge) which led to the spike in gas prices, Americans actually changed their energy consumption habits and sought out fuel efficiency. Hybrids went from some geeky idea to being another "guy" thing to one-up each other on.
Sometimes human beings are so dumb, in order to bring about social good you need Vader-esqe Republican policies that manipulate schmoes into doing something for the better. |
That's a bit of a stretch but, even granting it's true, neither party has done anything like enough for the environment. The Obama administration hasn't done anything like enough.
They would have done more, had it not been for Republican filibustering.
Basically, I agree with the OP. I also don't understand why so many people in Britain vote Conservative. Might as well punch yourself in the face. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Privateer
Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Location: Easy Street.
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 4:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Unposter wrote: |
A. "Who do you think runs the government? Poor people?" - Steelrails.
While to a certain extent, true today, it is not an eternal truth. Power and objective of policies are relative to the people in power and the ideas and policies they govern by. In other words, we have a democracy. The only reason why our current politics tilt to the rich are because the people have allowed it to. It wasn't the case, in other historical time periods, for example, FDR and to a certain extent during Kennedy and Johnson, though I do want to stress to a certain extent. And, regardless of the objective, government does/should play a role in regulating the economic system even between elites. The U.S. government has been moving away from this with disasterous results, i.e. the current economic crisis and the numerous banking scandals that have been plagueing us since at least the S&L scandal of the late 80s/early 90s, which was one of the biggest causes of U.S. debt.
|
FDR? The guy who manipulated us into WWII? You do realize that his "pro-poor" policies were an attempt by the establishment to avoid a Communist revolution, right? |
So? Just reinforces the point that pressure from below is good for democracy. What is democracy but a form of government invented by the many to protect themselves from the few?
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Kennedy? Johnson? The son of a bootlegger? A Texan who lusted for power? |
Don't care about who his father was but Kennedy is tainted for me by his actions during the Cuban missile crisis and his initiation of the Vietnam War; Johnson, by his pursuit of the Vietnam War.
As I said in a previous post, though, we can't assess parties today by what they did in the 60s. Let both parties be judged by their shoddy records of the current decade.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
This is just scary. I don't know what you are going on about here but if you look intellectual/scientific development over the ages, even the reforms of government and economy, that is simply not true.
|
Like our clean hands on our US Space program? |
? What you talking about? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 6:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
LBJ rigged elections to become senator and quite likely had a hand in killing JFK. |
First one is true, 2nd has no basis on fact. The first was common at the time, but admittedly he took it to the next level in te 1948 election. LBJ had about as much influence and power as you or me on November 1, 1963. He was miserable and was laughed at by pretty much everyone of importance in the federal government. There is no sign whatsoever that he knew anything about the JFK assassination.
| Quote: |
| If the rich would have voted him in he would have done so. |
What? I don't get it. If you mean he would have supported rich people if it would have won him the vote? Uh, the richest texans bought him that rigged election. They are the ones who funded his campaigns. LBJ wasn't pro-poor until he was president. Why? Because of those interests. I wasn't making any claim that LBJ was fighting for the poor during his political career, just when he was President, when he could say f-you to those special interests.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| LBJ did more for African Americans than any President other than Lincoln. Why? Because he could and thought it was the right thing to do (honestly- at least when he was Prez). |
So much so that he totally stopped the wiretapping of MLK, oh wait...
You do realize that Johnson loved to drop N Bombs left and right, right? But he's a politician and like any good politician he does what is in his own best interests.
Saying LBJ loved the poor and blacks is like saying Richard Nixon loved China, the environment, and women's rights. Just because you champion some legislation doesn't mean that you're a noble person. |
Where did I say LBJ was noble?? All I said was he did more for the poor than any other president than FDR. And that he believed in it. Definitely believed more in what he was doing than Nixon did in the environment and women's right.
And yes, LBJ used the N word all the time. He also taught poor Mexican immigrants for a year in some crappy border town in south texas. He taught at an inner city school in houston and coached its debate team to the state championships.
He also slept around like crazy, became incredibly rich by abusing his government influence, and treated his staff like they were serfs.
All I was saying was I thought you were being a little too dismissive of the man. There are few people out there that are as complicated as he was (in the sense that he was so often a total piece of shit and yet he also was an impressive leader who fought for the underserved). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yodanole
Joined: 02 Mar 2003
Location: La Florida
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 2:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The OP answered their own question. In the modern GOP, people are Republicans precisely because they have half a brain. Exactly one-half. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 3:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I could care less about JFK's father's profession. |
Things like that kinda matter in clannish families. Think Park Geun-Hye and her father or say the Le Pens or the Kircheners or the W. Bushes
.
| Quote: |
| As I understand it the 60s was a watershed in American politics because the Democrats threw in with the civil rights movement and thereby 'lost the south'. Really this bit of history doesn't make it any less true that the 10 poorest states *today* are Republican. |
That is due to the lingering history of the Democratic Party's control of the South and the policies they enacted. Generational poverty and ignorance is hard to overcome.
| Quote: |
| Fair enough, but if they're going bankrupt through public spending, and that public spending contributes to the increased prosperity of Democratic states, isn't that a good thing? |
Until people stop extending credit to the state. At which point you get economic collapse and ruin and in all likelihood social chaos.
It's like maxing out your credit cards and thinking all the stuff you've purchased will somehow carry you to continued prosperity.
Money doesn't grow on trees. If you're government is bankrupt and no one extends you credit that means you have to lay off a bunch of government employees.
| Quote: |
| Yes, when Republicans argue for a less intrusive government in economics, of course they really mean less support for ordinary people, and more support for the owners of the country. |
Somewhat agree with this. Republicans love their corporate welfare, particularly to the MI-Complex.
Of course massive government intrusion into economics is often bad, though not always as some conservatives claim. It sometimes has good short to medium range outcomes. Of course it also sometimes has catastrophic ones and it can be hard to predict which will take place.
| Quote: |
| Fair enough. But the lack of a social safety net and the withdrawal of police services for poor areas is an obvious structural cause of crime and a hallmark of neoliberal thinking. |
I think it has far more with the people in those cities being highly dependent on the social safety net and not having gainful employment or significant wealth creation. I'd also submit that the over-policing in regards to certain moral consumption choices by people in those neighborhoods adds to the problem.
| Quote: |
| Basically, I agree with the OP. I also don't understand why so many people in Britain vote Conservative. Might as well punch yourself in the face. |
I understand why people vote Democratic, Green, Libertarian, and Conservative. It's about what's in their own best interests and what values they hold. All government, since it is run by people, is inherently doomed to be beset by constant problems and upheavals. No government in history has been able to avoid collapse, usurpation, factionalization, and coup. I don't view any parties policies as utopian or ideal. You just do what is best for each situation and individual voters cannot be expected to go beyond what is in their interests. Currently I lean libertarian and think at the present time certain (not all) libertarian policies would solve some of the significant problems. Eventually though, due to human nature, those policies would cease to be effective and would become detrimental. That's how people are.
| Quote: |
| What is democracy but a form of government invented by the many to protect themselves from the few? |
Democracy is a form of government developed by demagogues who can manipulate the masses to validate their actions and a way for powerful interests to settle disputes without going to war against each other.
| Quote: |
| ? What you talking about? |
You do realize the US Space program was significantly helped thanks to ex-Nazi scientists, right?
| Quote: |
| All I was saying was I thought you were being a little too dismissive of the man. There are few people out there that are as complicated as he was (in the sense that he was so often a total piece of shit and yet he also was an impressive leader who fought for the underserved). |
I love LBJ's political skill. He was a master at building his power base, getting legislation passed, turning out machines to work for him, and possessed extraordinary political cunning. I don't care one way or the other about his supposed moral stands and accomplishments because such things are likely fantastical creations. The man stuffs ballot boxes to the extremes and I'm supposed to believe he helped the poor and African-Americans out of the goodness of his heart?
Politics isn't about morals and people voting for what they like. It's about interests and power. You think people who have zero qualms about bombing villages or exploiting overseas labor for pennies on the dollar or totally smearing and destroying other people and constantly lying have much of a moral component? And I don't expect them too. I grade them on effectiveness, and look to my friends, family, and preachers for morality. Not to Caesar and the Senate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unposter
Joined: 04 Jun 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 4:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Steelrails,
For what it is worth, many of the scientists involved in the space program and the manhattan project were germans, many of them jews, I don't know if any of them were nazis.
Also, while I do think that some people vote because of their values and their economic interests, I don't think people are always that rational, and I beleive psychological studies bear that out. Many people also vote because of family lineage, geographical loyalties, because of who their friends vote for, because it is the only name that sounds familiar, because of racism, the appearance and/or feeling of the candidate and a whole-host of other factors which really do not apply to their interest. And, of course, many people just don't vote or if they vote, they vote for a non-person such as Mickey Mouse.
Why people vote Republican or Democrat is most likely much more complicated than just values and interests. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unposter
Joined: 04 Jun 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 5:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Steelrails,
I forgot to mentiont that your comment about people living in cities being dependent on welfare is a serious stereotype. You have no idea how many people living in cities are in poverty much less the reasons why some of them may be living in poverty. It is not just dependency on welfare - in fact I am not even sure how to quantify it. Didn't Clinton end welfare as we know it and put caps on welfare and force singly mothers to work?
And, I don't know if you realize it or not but the economy is not exactly bubbling with jobs, much less decent paying jobs at the momment.
I think you are being far too unfair to a very large group of people - people living in American cities. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 7:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
something something hitler something something.
| Quote: |
| I forgot to mentiont that your comment about people living in cities being dependent on welfare is a serious stereotype. You have no idea how many people living in cities are in poverty much less the reasons why some of them may be living in poverty. It is not just dependency on welfare - in fact I am not even sure how to quantify it. Didn't Clinton end welfare as we know it and put caps on welfare and force singly mothers to work? |
Obama ended most of the Clinton welfare reforms a few months ago. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
