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 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
 
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 Nov 22, 2012 3:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think sirius black is saying Obama came "out of nowhere" in perhaps a media or popularity sense. While we are arguing it in a political genesis sense. He' taking it from the point of view of the laity, us as wonks.

It's like sirius black is saying "Joseph Ratzenberger" came out of nowhere to be Pope. Well to the laity everyone is like "who?", but of course to people who are in tune with the winds at St. Peter's, Ratzenberger is no surprise and followed the traditional corridors to get there, much like Obama.

Or take Osama Bin Laden, many people on 9/11 were saying "Who is this Osama guy? Is he a Palestinian?" or were blaming the PLO and Arafat first.

Those in the know needed all of about 10 seconds to look at things and conclude Osama Bin Laden. It was pretty obvious. I called my dad when I first heard about it and 5 seconds in said "Looks like Bin Laden" and he agreed. Of course the average Tom, Dick, and Harry had never heard of him and say "he came out of nowhere to attack us".

So sirius black, again, while he may have come out of nowhere to you and to many others. He did not come out of nowhere in terms of the traditional "junior circuits" for politicians and connections and he did not come out of nowhere to the K-Street/Punditry circles.

Heck Star Trek nerds back in the Senate campaign knew about him as the guy who was running against the husband of Seven-of-Nine.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sirius black



Joined: 04 Jun 2010

PostPosted: Thu Nov 22, 2012 4:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Problem is steelrails is your definition of first 'grassroots' and later 'out of nowhere' isn't the genearally acceptable defintion. I can understand you have your own and I understand and respect that you were writing from that perspective. Although I would not extend that to visitorg. He knew better.
By general standards and definition of the term with regards to a Presidential bid he did come from out of nowhere.

Lets move on.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steelrails



Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

PostPosted: Thu Nov 22, 2012 5:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

sirius black wrote:
Problem is steelrails is your definition of first 'grassroots' and later 'out of nowhere' isn't the genearally acceptable defintion. I can understand you have your own and I understand and respect that you were writing from that perspective. Although I would not extend that to visitorg. He knew better.
By general standards and definition of the term with regards to a Presidential bid he did come from out of nowhere.

Lets move on.


I think they are

Grassroots campaign- Campaign started by small groups of people, without substantial backing, networking together to promote a certain issue. Does not ahve the backing of large donors or the party establishment

Out of nowhere- Emerging from uncommon sources or points of origin.

Ron Paul would be an example of a politician with a grassroots campaign. Dennis Kucinich would be another But Ron Paul and Kucinich are veterans of Congress. Therefore they are not "Out of nowhere".

Congress is not "Out of nowhere", neither is the Senate, High-Level Cabinet positions, The Supreme Court, Governorships, Major Business figures, or Highly-visible mayors.

A state Senator running a campaign for Senate is not "out of nowhere".

For "spawning pools" Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Georgetown are not "out of nowhere". Especially the Harvard Law Review.

You might as well say "Our Surgeon General came out of nowhere" Really, why? "Well he was the editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, a graduate of Johns Hopkins, and served on some state health boards" Totally out of nowhere. Rolling Eyes

If you didn't know who Obama was and you said he was head of the Harvard Law Review, a State Senator, then a Senator, and then he ran for President, would we say he came out of nowhere? Of course not. Sounds like every other politician.

The closest we had to "Out of Nowhere" was Sarah Palin, and even she doesn't really qualify as winning a state-wide election, no matter where, puts you in the "Somewhere" category.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
visitorq



Joined: 11 Jan 2008

PostPosted: Thu Nov 22, 2012 9:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Steelrails wrote:
sirius black wrote:
Problem is steelrails is your definition of first 'grassroots' and later 'out of nowhere' isn't the genearally acceptable defintion. I can understand you have your own and I understand and respect that you were writing from that perspective. Although I would not extend that to visitorg. He knew better.
By general standards and definition of the term with regards to a Presidential bid he did come from out of nowhere.

Lets move on.


I think they are

Grassroots campaign- Campaign started by small groups of people, without substantial backing, networking together to promote a certain issue. Does not ahve the backing of large donors or the party establishment

Out of nowhere- Emerging from uncommon sources or points of origin.

Ron Paul would be an example of a politician with a grassroots campaign. Dennis Kucinich would be another But Ron Paul and Kucinich are veterans of Congress. Therefore they are not "Out of nowhere".

Exactly. I think sirius black is being very disingenuous by defining Obama's campaign as "grassroots". It was no such thing, not by any definition.

Ron Paul was grassroots. He raised the majority of his money through small contributors in "money bombs" with his strongest support coming from military servicemen (with whom his anti-war message resonated strongly). It is also obvious that he was grassroots because his message was not carried by the mainstream media, except insofar as it was dismissed, ridiculed, or flat-out slandered.

Obama was the opposite. He was vetted and backed by the establishment full-stop. And he was always a sell-out, right from day one.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sirius black



Joined: 04 Jun 2010

PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2012 2:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Problem is neither of you can provide any evidence other than we are supposed to take your say so on your position despite more than ample evidence otherwise.

visitorg dismisses the VERY thing we do on here to back up our information. The VERY thing he uses to support his other positions...usually. Because he does tend to do the 'I say so its a fact' thingy as well.

FACT is Obama didn't get Wall Street money UNTIL he won a few prmaries and it looked like the presumptive nominee.

visitorg is relying on the uninformed forumite. His tactic of internet bullying does not work here. Sorry, won't work. Often times providing good opinions as steelrails as well WHEN supported by evidence.

Can we move on?

I'm willing to move on. I've supported my view with links.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Titus



Joined: 19 May 2012

PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2012 8:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
FACT is Obama didn't get Wall Street money UNTIL he won a few prmaries and it looked like the presumptive nominee.


Completely untrue. He had Penny Pritzker's wallet in his hand the whole time. She's Chicago usury not NY usury, but I'm sure PSP Capital Partners has a NYC office.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steelrails



Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2012 4:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

sirius black wrote:


FACT is Obama didn't get Wall Street money UNTIL he won a few prmaries and it looked like the presumptive nominee.


I'm willing to move on. I've supported my view with links.



We've provided evidence of Obama having come from somewhere- It's called his CV. He was head of the Harvard Law Review, the most prestigious university in the nation and a breeding ground for politicians and a playground for the wealthy's young. He served on several project boards. Then he was a State Senator for multiple terms, chairing a committee, and ran in a primary for a Congressional seat in Illinois and then finally won election to the US Senate.

That's the evidence that Obama didn't come from nowhere. How can you read that bio and still claim "He came from nowhere"?

You do realize that saying "He came from nowhere" puts you in the Birther camp, right? If you want a bunch of people who say Obama "came from nowhere", go read talk to the Obama's a KenyanMuslimCommunistAtheistFascistIndonesianBlackPower plant from the One-World Government.

Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum didn't get "Wall Street Money" until they made some noise. That doesn't mean they came out of nowhere.

You haven't supported your view sirius because you fundamentally are misunderstanding what "came out of nowhere" means.

How is someone who is part of the 100 member Senate club, was a State representative in Illinois, and was head of Harvard Law Review OUT OF NOWHERE?

I really hate to say this, but if some white Republican was head of Harvard Law Review, spent time in their State Assembly, and was then a Senator, would you say he came out of nowhere?

Ross Perot was more "Out of Nowhere" than Obama and not even Perot was THAT out of nowhere.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sirius black



Joined: 04 Jun 2010

PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2012 8:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Steelrails wrote:
sirius black wrote:


FACT is Obama didn't get Wall Street money UNTIL he won a few prmaries and it looked like the presumptive nominee.


I'm willing to move on. I've supported my view with links.



We've provided evidence of Obama having come from somewhere- It's called his CV. He was head of the Harvard Law Review, the most prestigious university in the nation and a breeding ground for politicians and a playground for the wealthy's young. He served on several project boards. Then he was a State Senator for multiple terms, chairing a committee, and ran in a primary for a Congressional seat in Illinois and then finally won election to the US Senate.

That's the evidence that Obama didn't come from nowhere. How can you read that bio and still claim "He came from nowhere"?

You do realize that saying "He came from nowhere" puts you in the Birther camp, right? If you want a bunch of people who say Obama "came from nowhere", go read talk to the Obama's a KenyanMuslimCommunistAtheistFascistIndonesianBlackPower plant from the One-World Government.

Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum didn't get "Wall Street Money" until they made some noise. That doesn't mean they came out of nowhere.

You haven't supported your view sirius because you fundamentally are misunderstanding what "came out of nowhere" means.

How is someone who is part of the 100 member Senate club, was a State representative in Illinois, and was head of Harvard Law Review OUT OF NOWHERE?

I really hate to say this, but if some white Republican was head of Harvard Law Review, spent time in their State Assembly, and was then a Senator, would you say he came out of nowhere?

Ross Perot was more "Out of Nowhere" than Obama and not even Perot was THAT out of nowhere.


Steelrails, I have to assume you do not know the context and political meaning of why I stated that he had a grassroots campaign and he came out of nowhere to beat Hillary.

Your view of the term politically again is NOT the accepted view. You and visitorg have provided NOTHING other than your view.

I have provided ample evidence that the term I used is the accepted usage.

Again, where is yours? Yours is an opinion. I accept its your opinion but your opinion is not generally accepted.

Okay, let me put it this way, he was a long shot. That's what the term means in another context so you can better understand its meaning. He was a very long shot to be the Democratic nominee.

Does that help? That's what the term means in the context how political scientists, pundits, strategists, etc. mean it.

Look at the list of candidates back in 2008
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_candidates,_2008

Senator Hillary Clinton
Senator Joe Biden
Senator Christopher Dodd
Senator John Edwards
Senator Mike Gravel
Congressman Dennis Kucinich
Governor Bill Richardson

Now, does the term out of nowhere give you some sort of context and clarity? I would guess every one of the aforementioned had vastly more experience and notoriety than Obama did.

Now do you understand? Its silly to keep going on with this. Will someone privately PM steelrails and explain it, it seems I'm doing a bad job of it.

Really, I feel silly to keep responding.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steelrails



Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 3:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Senator Hillary Clinton
Senator Joe Biden
Senator Christopher Dodd
Senator John Edwards
Senator Mike Gravel
Congressman Dennis Kucinich
Governor Bill Richardson


I would guess every one of the aforementioned had vastly more experience and notoriety than Obama did.


Hillary was clearly the favorite, the way Romney was.

Biden, Dodd, and Richardson were all running for Vice-President. Think John Huntsmen or Tim Pawlenty this year

Gravel and Kucinich were fringe candidates.

Obama in 2008 was more well known than everyone save Clinton and Edwards thanks to his keynote in 2004.

Quote:
Okay, let me put it this way, he was a long shot. That's what the term means in another context so you can better understand its meaning. He was a very long shot to be the Democratic nominee.

Does that help? That's what the term means in the context how political scientists, pundits, strategists, etc. mean it.


Dude I'm a PoliSci major class of 2007. EVERYONE in our department knew about Obama and was wondering if he was going to run in 2008 and many were hoping he would. The question wasn't if, but when. When Harold Ford, Jr. lost his Senate race, everyone agreed that it was probably Obama who was going to be the first black president. As an absolute political junkie I constantly read articles about him on political websites such as Salon, Slate, HuffPo, etc.

That's why I keep on saying he came out of nowhere to you. To political junkies this was no surprise. Even his victory, while an upset and mildly surprising was no more surprising than to use a sports metaphor, Boise St. beating Oklahoma. "Boise St. came out of nowhere! I've never heard of them. They didn't have a chance!" Unless you were a College Football addict in which case you knew Boise St. was a prime bet.

Every since his keynote address in 2004 which got MAJOR airplay on the cable news networks and was a source of constant buzz for 6 months after that, there were always stories tracking him and always speculation about if he would run.

And Obama becoming the nominee, while an upset, was not that big a surprise for one major reason- The Iraq War. Both Clinton and Edwards were hurt by their support for the Iraq War and their votes in the Senate. Obama campaigned as the anti-war candidate.

Remember W. Bush? Remember how hated he was? Remember how fed up our country was with Iraq? Remember how important the Iraq War was in 2008? Remember who was the one mainstream anti-war candidate?

Quote:
Your view of the term politically again is NOT the accepted view. You and visitorg have provided NOTHING other than your view.


Fine, google "Barack Obama" from 2004-2008 and tell me what you come up with. A whole lot of nothing or reams of hits?

And going back to my sports analogy, I don't recall Obama being some uber-longshot in Vegas or on PaddyPowered, so if he wasn't a longshot there, then he wasn't a longshot period.

Apparently in 2007 Vegas gave only a slight edge to Hillary

Quote:
http://onesorryblog.wordpress.com/category/2008-presidential-odds/


And even before the New Hampshire Primary, Obama was the favorite.

Quote:
http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/01/07/obama-odds-on-favorite-to-win-nomination/


Regardless, people weren't putting hard money down on Joey O'Biden, Chris Dodd, Gravel, or any of the other 2nd stringers you suggested were more favored.

Quote:
Will someone privately PM steelrails and explain it, it seems I'm doing a bad job of it.


I don't think anyone us because most of the people in the CE forum are political junkies and remember back to 2004 when they were watching the Democratic National Convention and first got a look at Obama and his keynote address and remember hearing constant chatter about him from 2004-2008 on CNN/MSNBC/FOXNews.

I even remember after that address some pundit going "There goes the first black president of the United States".

He didn't come from nowhere, he had constant buzz from 2004-2008, and he was only a moderate underdog to Hillary. And as visitorq cited, he wasn't even THAT grassroots, nowhere near as grassroots as Kucinich or Ron Paul.

As for your "sources"

Ed Morissey's is the only one by an established pundit and is clearly playing up the Obama miracle angle to those who are political lightweights and neophytes, as those of us who are in the know don't even need a recapping and some of his assertions were fundamentally false- Richardson? Really? Everyone knew from day 1 he was campaigning for vice-president.

The next article was from a British paper with an article desperate to play up the impact of social media. Social didn't leave the McCain campaign in taters, 8 years of the Bush Administration and Sarah Palin did.

The last article is a borderline birther article.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 4:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

sirius black wrote:
...It's generally accepted by any reputable political pundit or political scientist ...

... the general consensus ...

... isn't the genearally acceptable defintion ...

...By general standards and definition of the term...

...but your opinion is not generally accepted...


Seriously?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sirius black



Joined: 04 Jun 2010

PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2012 5:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fox wrote:
sirius black wrote:
...It's generally accepted by any reputable political pundit or political scientist ...

... the general consensus ...

... isn't the genearally acceptable defintion ...

...By general standards and definition of the term...

...but your opinion is not generally accepted...


Seriously?

Yes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
visitorq



Joined: 11 Jan 2008

PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2012 8:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

sirius black wrote:
Fox wrote:
sirius black wrote:
...It's generally accepted by any reputable political pundit or political scientist ...

... the general consensus ...

... isn't the genearally acceptable defintion ...

...By general standards and definition of the term...

...but your opinion is not generally accepted...


Seriously?

Yes

You are projecting.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
geldedgoat



Joined: 05 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Thu Nov 29, 2012 8:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

sirius black wrote:
Let me once and for all clarify my point.

ALL western medical boards and their doctors will NOT abort a healthy baby in the 7th month of pregnancy for example unless there are extraordinary circumstances such as the life of the mother. They deem that fetus a human being.

However, those same medical boards and doctors will abort a pregnancy in the first month because they do not deem it a human life medically but a clump of cells.


Some doctors will abort whatever the law legally allows them to. Some doctors will abort whatever they are given the chance to, be it legal or otherwise. And some doctors will abort nothing, despite being legally allowed to do so. What relevance does this have to your claim that medical science asserts that life does not begin at conception? Or are you now abandoning that claim to simply state a statistic about what some doctors will and will not do?

Quote:
The fundamental right specifically views that as life just as much as its life at 7 months. They base this on biblical doctrine NOT natural law or medical science's opinion.


What Biblical doctrine is that?
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
Page 5 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