|
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 |
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 6:55 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
| Seems like you obviously grasp at the obvious so obliquely. This is just trite and uneducated, to assume people "vote with their feet" when leaving something so strong as their home countries. |
Trite. Uneducated. Big words for a babysitter. Anyhow, it is an interesting claim. Lets see if he is able to logically support it using evidence and reason...
| Quote: |
People immigrate for so many reasons, many, many..... Kuros has suggested one. Two, what they BELIEVE to be better for their kids. Three, for psychological reasons of the grass being greener, Four, for reasons of connection, historical import, Five and most importantly, for reasons of population pressure........... I could name very many more.
|
So, your answer is that they move because they merely believe life will be better? As if they live in caves, and don't have family, media, friends and the rest to properly inform them? Are only people from developed nations able to make informed decisions that accurately predict the best outcome?
Population pressure? Does this have anything to do with governance? I live in the most densely populated nation on earth, and it feels quiet, calm and orderly. You can not separate governnace from 'population pressure'.
The move to another place because the other place is better to live in? I think perhaps that is why they do it. The real big question is 'why are they better places to live in?'. But I seriously doubt you would even be able to consider such a question honestly.
| Quote: |
I don't think it appropriate or intelligent to assume that such a complex issue as migration can be an indicator or those countries that are best governed or best to live in. Otherwise China would be right up there... Russia and also Morocco....to quickly name a few.
|
What you are trying to do is disassociate governance from quality of life. Which is childishly absurd. Har Har.
| Quote: |
Let's also not forget that happiness is not of place but within..... or as that song goes, "always bring the weather with you." |
For Christ sake. Dude, if that is the case, you need to move bodies cause you are one of the most obviously miserable nutz-o's on this site. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 11:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ddeubel wrote: |
| McGarette, you'd be more right in labeling Chavez as a man of the "right" than "the left". He is authoritarian, controlling and like all those who want to control and not really fertilize discussion, individual freedoms, speaks out the side of his mouth while at the same time destroying the institutions that would deliver what he speaks of.... |
Chavez is leftist authoritarian, just like Mao, Lenin, or Castro before him. His rhetoric is economic equality, so he is a Leftist. Sorry, you don't get to put him to the right just because you don't like the man.
I agree, authoritarianism is quite distasteful and disgusting, no matter what the economic policy. Leftist authoritarianism is even worse. Liberty is more important than equality, said the American revolution to the French guilliotine operators. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemcgarrett
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 12:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Kuros is correct. The Left is more egregious in this regard simply because they purport to serve the interests of all the people. That not only makes them hypocrites but, in my book, cheats and liars as well.
What the Left and its sympathizers fail to admit is that they can be as authoritarian as the far right, and as concerned with aggrandizement of power. But at least the far right acknowledges subserviance to the State as an inevitable consequence of their rule. Above all, politicos like Chavez dissemble and, come to think of it, so does the devil. Before Hugo goes into a tirade about Bush being the devil, he ought to look in the mirror first.
As bad as Chavez is, he isn't as bad as that Left-wing nut in Zimbabwe, Mugabe, who is driving his country into the ground. If ever there was a candidate for assassination, it would be him and that other nutbag in Iran, Ahmadejinamuhammedallahjihadadan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 12:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
The 'far left' and 'far right' are metaphorically holding hands on the political spectrum. While they arrive at the authoritarian outcomes by different means, the ends are quite the same.
As the saying goes, the only difference between a leftist and rightest dictatorship is that in the leftist dictatorship you starve to death before being disappeared.
Chavez is a leftist, and a hero to leftists. That XXX, and others, want to disassociate themselves form this thug is unsurprising. This is an established pattern of behavior. Not 6 months ago people were cheerleading for Chavez on this site. No surprise, they have shut the *beep* up now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemcgarrett
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 7:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Precisely, BJWD.
But the wishful thinking lefties on this board can't see that. British historian Arnold Toynbee articulated as much many decades ago and the far left enablers are still ignoring his definition of totalitarianism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
endo
Joined: 14 Mar 2004
Location: Seoul...my home
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 8:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Didn't America already have its go at Latin America during the 20th century?
Most of the states in that region of the world attempted to adopt liberal economic policies and democracy.
Look how that turned out!
I'm not saying Chavez and Castro have the correct answer, but if their critics on this thread should also accept the fact that American led policies have been an utter failure in Latin America. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 10:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| endo wrote: |
| Didn't America already have its go at Latin America during the 20th century...? |
You must be referring to the Americans' capitalizing the Inter-American Development Bank, JFK's Alliance for Progress, and a still-successful Fulbright Scholarship program that pays for not a few Latin Americans' graduate/professional education in the United States...?
| endo wrote: |
| Look how that turned out...! American...policies have been an utter failure in Latin America. |
Unfortunately, true. America prioritized the Cold War after 1945 and other issues fell to the sidelines -- even those policies I reference above.
And, yes, these policy-initiatives failed. They confronted a very churlish, seventeenth-century, quasi-feudal land ownership and rural labor pattern; a challenging and particularly Hispanic civil-military relations pattern; and a host of other issues, not the least of which included Latin Americans' unfortunate tendency to split into increasingly smaller and hostile factions -- to divide and bicker, rather than unite and collaborate.
If that is what you mean, sure I agree: America's Latin American policies failed to reform, modernize, and democratize the region -- except for, ironically, Chile. And even that fits within Diego Portales's earlier enforced-stability -- "the weight of the night," he called it -- and not American policies, per se, however. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemcgarrett
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 6:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
endo:
The Latin Americans are mostly to blame for their own ineptness and greed. The lack of development of a viable middle class, except in Costa Rica, is indicative of this condition. Blaming America at this stage in the game is ridiculous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 1:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| endo wrote: |
Most of the states in that region of the world attempted to adopt liberal economic policies and democracy.
Look how that turned out!
I'm not saying Chavez and Castro have the correct answer, but if their critics on this thread should also accept the fact that American led policies have been an utter failure in Latin America. |
Utter failure?
Mexico: A few years after NAFTA, it elected a non-PRI politician as President (and now it has been 2 in a row. PRI candidate in the last election came in 3rd). How many people would argue Mexico in 1980 was in better shape than Mexico of 2007?
Chile: Strongest, most vibrant democracy in South America.
Brazil: Robust democracy. Can anyone imagine it going back to a dictatorship/junta? Seems a bit far-fetched to me. Yes, I realize the US is not responsible for this, but in the 90s Brazil did start to follow those liberal economic policies you disdain.
Peru: Thanks to those awful liberal economic polices, its growth has been quite substantial in the past 5 years.
Man oh man, DAMN those liberal econ policies! They haven't worked anywhere! well besides nearly every country that has implemented them effectively.
Yes, I know, the US interfered a little too much during the Cold War, but that was over awhile ago, was it not? Many feel the US has actually ignored Latin America since Clinton's time in comparison to other parts of the world. |
|
| 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
