|
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 |
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
 Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 11:53 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| stevemcgarrett wrote: |
| You can dress it up however you wish but it's still throwing pearls at swine. |
I'm surprised that you would characterise yourself in such a way. If the shoe fits, however... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 12:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stevemcgarrett wrote: |
...let's see you stick your neck out there and post a similarly provocative thread. Don't circle above like some vulture waiting to land on an imagined carcass.
It's no coincidence that most of the flame throwers on this forum are afraid of burning their own fingers. |
Bucheon Bum and I allegedly stand pretty close together on the political spectrum. Frustratingly, however, I find we disagree more than agree on many issues.
I would not call him a flamer, however. Neither would I suggest -- just because he does not create thread after thread like some of our paper-hanging propaganda artists here -- that Bucheon Bum is not afraid to put his money on the table, so to speak.
Remember this one, only a few days ago...?
http://www.eslcafe.com/forums/korea/viewtopic.php?t=75312
Although I think we share the same perspective regarding the criticisms you lob at the Democrats on this thread, Mcgarrett, I'll disagree with your take on Bucheon Bum here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alffy
Joined: 25 Apr 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 12:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stevemcgarrett wrote: |
| alffy:Guess what, lame brain: I am not a Republican, as I made clear in the post if you bothered to look past your preconceptions (in fact, I'd love to see a viable third party come into the next campaign). But then, to acknowledge as much, you would have to think past oppositional posturing which allows you to be so dismissive of my comments. |
Not a Republican? Once again, you doth protest too much...
What is an Independent in the US? Yes, you call for a third party, but have you acted upon it? I have. I have voted for every third party candidate for the last 11 years, for the sole purpose of providing our nation with another option. Everyone from Ross Pertot to Ralph Nader has garnered my vote (I even worked for John McCain in 2000).
But, I must say, Mr. McGarrett, your opinions lack independent thought. You claim to not be an adherent of any party, yet you toe the line as well as any Republican I have ever read.
You bandy about such insults as "lame brain" toward me, yet you refuse to accept that your initial post was clearly along party lines. I wish you were what you claim to be, but unfortuantely, your actions speak more clearly than your words. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 1:25 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
Let the spin begin?
You must have been born roundabout Jan. 1, 2007. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 1:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Yet on the other hand:
Nice try. She made a point of letting everyone know she had kids, only hers are grown up now. She insinuated she knew what it was like to be a worried parent (as if any of her offspring would have joined the non-com ranks of the military in the first place) and then played petty one upmanship by further insinuating that Rice couldn't possibly empathize as a childless woman.
|
I took it as just pointing out that neither her nor Rice are going to lose anything to lose by the war continuing. She didn't even explicitly state that Rice is childless, you would have to know that already to get the point.
Anyway, what exactly do you suppose Boxer would have been trying to accomplish by attacking childless people as such? Are there all these Americans out there who are going to oppose something advocated by a childless person because they think that childlessness in-and-of-itself in immoral? I would imagine that the type of person who thinks that way(to the extent that they exist at all) is probably already a solid GOP supporter, not likely to defect to the Democrats. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 1:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Anyway, what exactly do you suppose Boxer would have been trying to accomplish by attacking childless people as such? Are there all these Americans out there who are going to oppose something advocated by a childless person because they think that childlessness in-and-of-itself in immoral? I would imagine that the type of person who thinks that way(to the extent that they exist at all) is probably already a solid GOP supporter, not likely to defect to the Democrats. |
Very good point. The last time I heard of childlessness being used against a politician, it was by the New Zealand National Party against Helen Clarke.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/australasia/article248855.ece
The Nationals are, of course, conservatives (though probably not by US standards). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemcgarrett
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 2:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Peanut brain:
I helped run my state's campaign for Eugene McCarthy in 1976, although later regretted it. I worked as a campus media staffer for several lectures by George McGovern in 1977-78. I voted for Anderson in 1980. I didn't vote in the 2000 election; I found Nader has gone off the deep end.
I voted for Bush in 1988 and 1992, with no regrets, and Dole in 1996, also with no regrets. In 1984 I voted in the primaries for Jesse Jackson, but that was before his anti-Semitic remarks. I have little respect for Jackson now.
So pin me down if you can. Like I said, you need to categorize me to dismiss my points but regardless of my supposed motives and allegiances, I have yet to hear a cogent rebuttal to the concern I raised in the original post.
On the other hand: gang an jee
Are you dense? Take off those horse blinders. Boxer was trying to undermine Rice's credibility in terms of making a sound ethical judgment to escalate the military commitment in Iraq. Ya know, I don't mind you not realizing this but when you can't see the elephant in the parlor but feel entitled to talk about elephants anyhow, that's what gets me ticked.
gopher:
Maybe you're right that he's not a flamer. He's just obtuse. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 5:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Boxer was trying to undermine Rice's credibility in terms of making a sound ethical judgment to escalate the military commitment in Iraq. |
I agree. But I don't think she was trying to villify Rice for being childless, as you seem to be implying. She was simply suggesting that childless people(along with people whose children are past fighting age) aren't the ones who will be making the sacrifices.
I hope not. And I must say, I would have expected a more civil discourse coming from the guy who was berating another poster for "cheap shots" a while back. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alffy
Joined: 25 Apr 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 11:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stevemcgarrett wrote: |
Peanut brain:
I helped run my state's campaign for Eugene McCarthy in 1976, although later regretted it. I worked as a campus media staffer for several lectures by George McGovern in 1977-78. I voted for Anderson in 1980. I didn't vote in the 2000 election; I found Nader has gone off the deep end.
I voted for Bush in 1988 and 1992, with no regrets, and Dole in 1996, also with no regrets. In 1984 I voted in the primaries for Jesse Jackson, but that was before his anti-Semitic remarks. I have little respect for Jackson now.
So pin me down if you can. Like I said, you need to categorize me to dismiss my points but regardless of my supposed motives and allegiances, I have yet to hear a cogent rebuttal to the concern I raised in the original post. |
Since you offered...
Now I don't like to psycho-analyze people from their on-line personas and brief posts (ahh, who am I kidding, I love to do just that), so...
Your political record follows a clear trend exhibitied by numerous Americans and, I'd suspect, many other people as well. Often we are more liberal and idealistic when young, but as we age we start losing that idealism. This often exhibits itself in a search for a feasible alternative. In your case it appears you became disillusioned by the state of American liberalism of the '70s and spent the early '80s searching for an 'independent' alternative. As you grew older, you followed the trend of so many of your peers by becoming progressively more conservative. Your vote in 1996 for Dole appears to be the acme of your conversion. The 2000 elections seem to have thrown you off, perhaps for the state of your conservatism is more socially/economically based and G.W. Bush represented too much of a religious conservative for your tastes (by the way, just because the major three candidates didn't appeal to you, that was not a valid excuse for not voting-there were plenty of other, smaller candidates on the ballet, I'm sure you could have found one to your liking, while still registering your displeasure with the establishment/system).
I also notice you have failed to proclaim your allegiances since the 1996 election. That is 11 years of what? Even professing your lack of support for Bush 43 in 2000 does not support your claim of indepenence, that's merely omission.
So...my analysis indicates you were a liberal in your youth, briefly an independent following that, and now soundly ensconced in the conservative mindset. Perhaps my earlier jibe at being a Republican may have been a bit off, but only so far as you fail to relate to that party due to its recent religious connotations. But your posts clearly indicate a sypathetic interpreter of their political agenda.
So, how was that?
As to categorizing you to dismiss you, that is just plain wrong. I don't need to categorize to dismiss, I can dismiss quite easily without a category. I dismiss your initial post (and many of your subsequent ones, as well) simply because they are falsly premised. Your categorization of the peoples involved and their actions were highly distrorted and strongly biased. It was quite clear from your OP you had no intention of approaching these topics from anything but a jaundiced viewpoint. If you truly had wanted a frank and open discussion on these topics you would have presented the facts without your bile and antagonism.
And for someone of your apparent age (I'm assuming you were at least a teenager in the 1976 campaign), your persona on these boards is rather lacking in maturity. Or did I misunderstand you when you called me "Peanut brain?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 12:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Anyway, what exactly do you suppose Boxer would have been trying to accomplish by attacking childless people as such...? |
Have you considered that you are assigning too much rationality to Washington's partisan affairs at the moment?
The United States has polarized like never before (at least in my memory). People already bickered -- as in the Clinton Administration. Since the Iraqi War, however, things have deteriorated markedly. "Professionalism" and "courtesy" are hardly ever seen.
Why are you so sure that Boxer did not descend into pettiness simply for pettiness's sake?
OP asserts that Rice declined to comment and moved on to another question. Did Boxer press her for an answer or raise the question again? If not, must not have been such an important question to her after all, right? And if that is so, perhaps she just wanted to say what she said to Rice and the question itself never really mattered to her.
So many committee hearings merely showcase individual Congressmen and Senators and their soap boxes. And not a few times have these soap boxes have created soap operas in Washington...
| On the other hand wrote: |
| She was simply suggesting that childless people (along with people whose children are past fighting age) aren't the ones who will be making the sacrifices... |
Still do not see the point. Are you suggesting that only parents understand what war entails?
If so, this fails to acknowledge veterans who never had children, for one. How about imaginative, intelligent people for another?
It seems to me that when this same committee confirmed W. Bush's nominating Rice to SecState, this was not an issue -- not for Boxer or anyone else on the left. It seems to me, moreoever, that when this same committee confirmed W. Bush's nominating Rice to SecState its members expressed implicit agreement that she was fully qualified to make such decisions.
If not, if she has such an inability to understand "sacrifice" in war, then why confirm her in such a position? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 4:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Either that, or you're just another mean-spirited politico |
In post after post on this thread, starting with the OP, you have displayed mean-spiritedness. That's too bad. On earlier posts you didn't show that negative side of yourself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
smogdonkey
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 6:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The only serious question left, after all of this mature, civil discourse, is: why do I keep reading these threads, time after time? I think reality TV and video games have reduced my brain to peanut status, and I yearn to see, hear, and read people mindlessly and incoherently insulting each other politically. Cheers for that. It's actually interesting to see people sticking with the argument, and logically retorting to insults. That's the beauty of the message board.
I, for one, couldn't logically reply with anything other than expletives (or chuckles) if someone called me dense or a peanut brain in person. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 6:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
OP asserts that Rice declined to comment and moved on to another question. Did Boxer press her for an answer or raise the question again? If not, must not have been such an important question to her after all, right? |
| Quote: |
| "Who pays the price?" Boxer repeatedly demanded. |
And Rice in fact did reply. The exchange:
| Quote: |
Rice said evenly that she understands the sacrifice of service members and families.
"I visit them. I know what they're going through. I talk to their families. I see it. I could never and I can never do anything to replace any of those lost men and women in uniform, or the diplomats, some of whom. ..."
Boxer cut her off.
"Madam Secretary, please," she said. "I know you feel terrible about it. That's not the point. I was making the case as to who pays the price for your decisions." |
CBS News Story |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 7:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Are you suggesting that only parents understand what war entails?
|
No, and I don't neccessarily agree with the point that I think Boxer was trying to make. Just that I don't think it's the same point that Steve claims she was making.
Here's a comparison: I come from an oil producing region. A few months ago, I was having a friendly debate at a bar with an Irishman who was advocating measures to reduce emissions, irrespective of the effect that these measures would have on the energy industry. It seemed to me that it was a bit too easy for him to make this argument in such a sweeping way, because he was not one of the people who would be economically affected by the measures he was supporting.
Now, in making that argument, was I trying to villify people who don't live in oil-producing regions? Of course not. I was simply trying to point out to him that there is an aspect of the issue that he might be overlooking as a result of his personal circumstances. My argument(like Boxer's) might not have been the best, since it doesn't disprove the environmental neccesity of reducing emissions. I just don't think it would be fair to say that I was demonizing people from non-oil regions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
twg
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Location: Getting some fresh air...
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 7:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| smogdonkey wrote: |
The only serious question left, after all of this mature, civil discourse, is: why do I keep reading these threads, time after time? I think reality TV and video games have reduced my brain to peanut status, and I yearn to see, hear, and read people mindlessly and incoherently insulting each other politically. Cheers for that. It's actually interesting to see people sticking with the argument, and logically retorting to insults. That's the beauty of the message board.
I, for one, couldn't logically reply with anything other than expletives (or chuckles) if someone called me dense or a peanut brain in person. |
So... not a big fan of those political pundit shows? |
|
| 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
