|
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 |
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
 Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 9:58 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Since this thread was a troll in the first place, and you ahve already hijacked it yourself, BJ, let us go ahead and examine your post to me:
The OP, by EFL, on the Kucinich impeachment legislation (Which was, in fact, current news):
| Quote: |
Quote:
...impeachment is an idea. The reason is, impeachment is how a proud nation defends itself. Impeachment is... courage and optimism that unites a nation. People aren't perfect; we make mistakes and then we act to fix our mistakes. And when an honest person that's honestly mistaken learns the truth, they either stop being a mistake or they stop being honest.
It might not be easy and it's not pleasant, but it's cerainly not an option of luxury. It's a duty for people who've learned the truth. It's on the lips of millions of Americans. It's the manifestation of courage; it's steeled by moral clarity and it's focused into a call for justice. Impeachment is what a proud nation does when it is united to protect its honor. - Eric Oemig, April 25, 2007
George Bush has shredded, violated and absented America from its obligations under international law. He has refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol, backed out of the Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty, tried to kill the International Criminal Court, walked out on negotiations on chemical and biological weapons, and defied the Geneva Convention and human rights law on the treatment of detainees... he launched an illegal war on Iraq on fabricated evidence we now know had been discredited even before it was made public. The president is guilty, in short, of what in legal circles is known as the crime of aggression. And if we, as citizens, do not hold him accountable for these crimes, if we do not begin the process of impeachment, we will be omplicit in the codification of a new world order. One that will have terrifying consequences. for a world without treaties, statutes and laws is a world where any nation - from a rogue nuclear state to great imperial power - will be able to invoke its domestic laws to annul its obligations to others. This will... thrust us into a Hobbsian nightmare... The exercis3e of power without law is tyranny. ... ; the empowerment of states that will act on our lawless example if we do not impeach George Bush and return to a world of standards, demands [impeachment]...
- Chris Hedges, April 25, 2007 |
Gopher's first post on said thread:
| Quote: |
Look! everyone: BLT has created yet another thread calling for impeachment.
I wager you have likely produed -- at a minimum -- three-dozen threads calling(extreme hyperbole) for W. Bush's impeachment over the last year or so.
You despise W. Bush and want us to denounce him as the Antichrist, (extreme hperbole) throw him out of office, waterboard him(extreme hperbole), shoot him with silver bullets(extreme hperbole), hang him just long enough to inflict brain damage on the man(extreme hperbole), draw-and-quarter him(extreme hperbole), cremate what remains while still partially alive(extreme hperbole), and then, finally, you yourself will appear to solemnly drive a wooden stake through his heart(extreme hperbole).
We get it. But how many of these haranguing, bombastic (extreme hperbole) threads do you plan on starting between now and January 2009...? |
Nothing on the content of the OP, only a straw man attack. So, who is chasing whom?
The OP from the "It's not about the Oil" thread:
| Quote: |
except that it is.
Oh, and Bush just promised the Saudis we won't leave Iraq on his watch. Period.
Listen to one of the few honest politicians around (Anyone up for a Kucinich/Paul ticket?):
It IS about the oil. And always has been.
Quote:
"You would think that by reading the reports that this bill was going to take us out of Iraq. Not a chance. What it would do, it would remove a substantial number of U.S. troops, to be sure, but an equally substantial number would stay. Why would they stay there? They would stay there to protect the contractors. They would stay there to run special missions. It doesn't end the occupation. The base is still staying there. The occupation continues.
But there was another provision of this bill that most American citizens don't even know about. This bill had provisions that the White House asked for, and the Democrats said to the president, okay, this is what you say you want, well we're going to give you what you want. Here's the provision is the provision that I argued against in the Democratic Caucus. This is the provision that says that the Iraqi government must privatize its oil."
"And it's wrapped up as part of a reconciliation program. Really. And, if they don't do it, in this bill that the president just vetoed, if they don't do it, we've said that we'll withdraw our troops without providing for replacement peacekeepers.
I want to run it by you one more time. I want this to sink in. You really need to understand how dangerous the situation is in Washington right now. We have the Democratic Congress promoting President Bush's bill that provides for the privatization of Iraq's oil under the guise of a reconciliation program, that tells the Iraq government that unless they agree to privatize their oil, that we're going to pull our troops out and not put replacement troops and peacekeepers in.
You see, this doesn't represent what America is about. No way. This isn't who we are...
I was told that the following day on the House floor they were going to take it out of the legislation. And you know what? Well, not only did they NOT take it out, but they passed a rule that said they COULDN'T amend the bill when it was up for debate on the floor." |
Gopher's first response in the thread:
| Quote: |
There is no point to this thread. (False, and hyperbole.)
BLT hates W. Bush. He has told us this a zillion times and in a zillion ways (hyperbole) -- each of them utterly devoid of elegance or indeed, intelligence (False and hyperbole). |
Notice anything, there? More lies and hperbole. Straw man arguments. Does not adress the issue of the thread in any way.
Seeing a pattern here?
Gopher's answer (not to me) on the michael moore thread: hyperbole, straw man, and disgustingly inappropriate (hypocrisy, thy name is gopher):
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
JAWINSEOUL wrote:
Should a 400 lb man advise us on the evils of over-consumption? |
Moore might take issue with that (between pizzas, that is)... |
Back to me, then. Gopher's first response after several of us whom he regularly lies and distorts about had posted on the "Bee" thread:
| Quote: |
Well, then. The gang is all here.
Adventurer posts a story on the declining honeybee population. BLT promptly cites "peak oil" (incorrect assertion, false) and Homo sapiens's pending demise on our planet (extreme hyperbole), Ddeubel preaches on the virtues of consuming "plant sperm," (attempt to paint a practical, well-researched health food as "nuttery") and now Igotthisguitar adds a reference to an X-Files-like military-research program somewhere in Alaska. (See previous, though I, too, fail to see the connection of igtg's post.) |
Seeing that pattern yet as to just who is dogging whom? Notice again a complete failure to address the issue of th thread in favor of straw men and other logical fallacies?
His response to me on the "fascist" thread:
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
EFLtrainer wrote:
Yes, it's all in our imaginations. |
More or less, BLT. (<--- Note the 100% consistency of name-calling) The truth of the matter is a bit more pathetic (insulting my/our intelligence, no?) than even that, however:
You and the others who share this view -- that is, that America is a fascist state (False characterization. It was not stated by anyone, not even the originally quoted article, that the US IS a fascist state.) -- seize on an emotionally-loaded anachronism to lend artificial credibility (false assertion. it implies we are lying, rather than sincere in our observations) and indeed force an otherwise unimpressive case against the United States govt. (Just more hyperbole and lying.)
However this may be, you and those who share your views are failing. (Really? Cuase he said so, I guess...)
For if you truly were Americans (Assertion false, of course, that we are not Americans or not "real" Americans), and if you sincerely concluded that America is a fascist state (again, false assertion), under a murderous, bully-like dictatorship (false assertion), its democracy broken (false assertion), it cannot be redeemed (false assertion), and so on, then you are failing to carry out the task that would naturally befall you if you loved democracy, truth, and liberty as you allege you do (False assertion. I am still waiting to know how h knows what ANY of us do...).
The so-called Founding Fathers, for example, reached their conclusion and moved on it. Lenin reached his conclusion and moved on it. See above. (More of the same false assertion that our entire political existence is to post on these boards. Begs the question: would the same not apply to himself?)
Yet you reached your conclusion and moved on it: you assumed an anonymous identity on an obscure internet message board and chose to rant and harangue other posters in complete safety. (Ah! The CRESCENDO!)
Etc. |
Seeing a pattern here?
Gopher's response to me on his own impeachment poll. (I did call him a liar previously, because he did.)
| Quote: |
BLT: (<--- Note the ever-present name-calling.)
The fact that you do not care about these questions betrays much about your obsession "to get" the man, come what may... |
Again, with the mischaracterization and outright lies. He knows what he states is incorrect. He is lying. My stance is well known to him: there are political issues to be considered. I happen to believe that the macro issues are more important in the long run. He knows this.
See a pattern here? The above are from just the first EIGHT most recent posts that came up under a search. 6 of the 8 start with insults, straw men, hyperbole and lies.
Care to reassess your position?
EDIT:
What the hell. Here's one more from the 11th of the first 11. His first post on the "Iacocca" thread.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
cbclark4 wrote:
The only thing Iacocca ever managed was... |
Yes, yes, yes. But you miss this thread's point: Iacocca has defied W. Bush. In BLT's eyes, this is noteworthy and remarkable.
For one it makes Iacocca "a brilliant man" and "a great leader." For another it means that BLT must not be a wild-eyed radical after all... |
Yes, let's note again the non-response to the OP. Notice the attempt to imply Iacocca is NOT considered to be of any quality. Straw man bullpucky.
Suggest you reassess. You are being swayed by multi-syllabic insults. You are being fooled, BJ. I call it like it is. You want polite discourse in the face of constant propaganda, lies and false assertions? Please... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
stevemcgarrett
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 3:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
BJWD:
Anyone with half their wits about them can see that Gopher engages in argumentation with a level-headed tone.
Even some of the leftists on this board think EFLT is off the deep end.
I could have better conversation with Michael Moore. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 5:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stevemcgarrett wrote: |
| Gopher... level-headed tone |
Sorry about all that evidence to the contrary above, troll. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 7:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| BJWD wrote: |
vale.
Anyhooo..
This Iranian prez deflects attention off himself and his idiotic theocratic governing style but pointing to the great Satan. It is a ploy. The roots are in the poor history with the USA but it has moved beyond that now.
It is important to leave the Iranians alone right now. The people need to make their own changes. Authentic cultural advancement in Iran and islam more generally can only come from within. |
And just what was it, in recent history, that helped push the moderates out of power, eh? |
the moderates were pushed out of power cause the Iranian goverment disqualified them |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
charlieDD
Joined: 16 Jun 2006
Location: Seoul, Korea
|
| Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 3:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Seems an odd place for him to "rally the troops". I mean, shouldn't he ask himself first why 500,000 Iranians have to make their living in the UAE instead of in Iran? And, how UAE is able to support so many of them with better-paying jobs than they can get in Iran? ( Hint: A country and an economy that is open to the world and still maintains its strong religious beliefs.)
P.S. I don't post here often; nor read the posts here often. But one useful trick I have learned to do is: when it comes to any posting by EFL Trainer, just fast forward. 
Last edited by charlieDD on Tue May 15, 2007 6:57 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 6:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| charlieDD wrote: |
| Seems an odd place for him to "rally the troops..." |
It might seem so at first glance, CharlieDD. But it makes excellent political sense. At least two ideas will rally large numbers of Middle Easterners under a single banner, if only the right kind of leader might emerge and do it: antiAmericanism and anti-Israeli propaganda campaigns -- think, for example, of Saddam's failed attempts to break the allied coalition and unite the Arab Middle East under his leadership by lobbing Scud missiles at Tev Aviv in the Gulf War.
First, the obvious: this works for the very simple reason that, as we all know, American foreign policy benefits some, hardly affects others, and harms still others in world affairs. And many of those harmed -- or more importantly: those who have a vested interest in emphasizing this point -- reside in the Middle East and especially in the Gulf States. Chalmers Johnson understands this well. One of Sorrow's of Empire's better qualities.
That is, my second point is that large numbers of Middle Easterns buy into all of this because local elites cultivate and indeed enhance it. Better to blame America and Israel for all that has gone wrong in their part of the world than allow locals to think about local leaders and the political economies they have created...
| Chalmers Johnson wrote: |
Just south of Bahrain is the rich country of Qatar, about the size of Connecticut and Rhode Island combined. The head of state, the emir, is directly accountable to no one. He is constrained only by tribal tradition and Islamic law and works primarily to preserve the feudal interests of his family. This is not easy, however, given the contemporary pressures on Qatar, which has a population of slightly over 800,000, 80 percent of whom are foreign workers, mostly highly literate Arabs, Pakistanis, Indians, and Iranians. Thanks to great oil wealth and stupendous reserves of natural gas, Qataris in the year 2000 enjoyed a per capita income of about $20,300, equal to that of the most developed countries...
Qatar was part of the anti-Iraqi coalition during both Gulf Wars. In June 1992, it granted the United States basing and weapons-prepositioning rights in return for an implicit guarantee of aid if Qatar were attacked. Qatar's fears are not absract. Although the country is several times larger and much richer than Bahrain, genuine Qataris constitute such a small minority that the country has been ripe for an external takeover, internal revolution, or both. It shares a disputed land border with Saudi Arabia, fought Bagdad during both Gulf Wars, and often feuds with Iran. It hopes that by unobtrusively supporting the United States while publicly criticizing it and denouncing Israel while publicizing its large monetary donations to the Palestinians, it can contain popular indignation. The goal is to keep the dictatorial powers of its small ruling elite intact as long as possible...
During the late 1990s, the government of Qatar actually built al-Udeid Air Base at a cost of $1.4 billion with the thought that it might attract the Americans, who clearly were not going to hold on to their Saudi bases forever, and perhaps bribe them into becoming the country's protector... |
Chalmers Johnson, Sorrows of Empire, 246-247.
The Iranian leadership has been moving to attain regional hegemony attempting to harness and then manipulate these subsurface, local political conditions -- particularly in the UAE, where they are stronger than in the other Gulf States -- for some time.
Last edited by Gopher on Tue May 15, 2007 7:43 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
charlieDD
Joined: 16 Jun 2006
Location: Seoul, Korea
|
| Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 7:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I understand and agree with all the above, Gopher.
My point wasn't quite that I didn't understand his motives and goals; I was pointing out the irony of him rallying expats who have had to leave the Iran to find meaningful and rewarding careers and lifestyles.
Yeah, my take on it was "He's just doing a Chavez" He and Hugo enjoy sticking it to the Americans and both try to build regional alliances, just as the Americans are working on building their own in the same regions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 7:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| charlieDD wrote: |
| I was pointing out the irony... |
I feel the same as you, then. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemcgarrett
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 10:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
charlieDD wrote:
| Quote: |
| P.S. I don't post here often; nor read the posts here often. But one useful trick I have learned to do is: when it comes to any posting by EFL Trainer, just fast forward |
Yep.
| Quote: |
| My point wasn't quite that I didn't understand his motives and goals; I was pointing out the irony of him rallying expats who have had to leave the Iran to find meaningful and rewarding careers and lifestyles. |
Yep again.
Gopher wrote:
| Quote: |
| Better to blame America and Israel for all that has gone wrong in their part of the world than allow locals to think about local leaders and the political economies they have created |
Bingo. They're always looking for a scapegoat. |
|
| 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
