|
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: Fri May 25, 2007 7:46 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| You, like many others, need to seperate the issue of whether the war was right to engage in from the matter of whether the US should withdraw troops and if so under what conditions they should do so. |
Absurd. How do you separate the rightness or wrongness of a thing from whether it should be engaged in? The *focus* must shift, and has for most, so I don't understand your comment at all.
As for the Dems, they will take a beating over this, and already are. We are a fairly large step closer to a new third party. I, for one, am busy contacting those I think viably in position to affect such change to encourage a strong third party, anti-war, pro-Constitution, pro-rule of law, anti-interventionist (in the sense of extreme covert ops, preemptive war, gov't overthrowing, etc.) pro-middle and lower class, anti-big money politics party.
I was very surprised and very heartened to find others saying the same (with regard to holding Dems responsible for this cowardice) after the recent vote. It is time for some serious change.
Last edited by EFLtrainer on Fri May 25, 2007 7:47 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Alias
Joined: 24 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 7:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| If the Republicans field a Presidential candidate who will continue the war in Iraq they won't be taking the White House in 2008. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 7:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Alias wrote: |
| If the Republicans field a Presidential candidate who will continue the war in Iraq they won't be taking the White House in 2008. |
Republicans lie. Bush was anti-nation building, remember? All the while, he and the Cadre were already planning Iraq.
NO republican... not even Ron Paul. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 8:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
American democracy is a joke. Yes I do understand it. |
No, I don't think you do fully understand.
You seem to think America is or should be a democracy, plain and simple. It is not a democracy nor was it intended to be such. Ya-Ta Boy has been trying to educate this forum on this matter. America is a Democratic-Republic. As to what that means, here is a hint. If there were no Senate, and only a House of Representatives, it is more likely Congress would have overwhelmed Bush's veto. The fact that Bush has a veto, and more importantly even has retained power despite his party's removal from majority status, should underline the difference between the American system and most other Western democratic systems.
America does not have a multiple party system nor is it Parliamentary. That fact is very critical, because it limits the effective power of the mandate given to the Democrats elected in 2006.
| EFLTrainer wrote: |
Kuros wrote:
You, like many others, need to seperate the issue of whether the war was right to engage in from the matter of whether the US should withdraw troops and if so under what conditions they should do so.
Absurd. How do you separate the rightness or wrongness of a thing from whether it should be engaged in? The *focus* must shift, and has for most, so I don't understand your comment at all. |
The fact that you refuse to make a distinction does not mean that others do not. Read the article Joo posted above. Many Americans do make a distinction between the rightness or wrongness of the mission, and whether America should try to stay in Iraq to prevent something much worse than happening.
I do think you have a valid point, EFLTrainer. I just don't personally share it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 8:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
| American democracy is a joke. Yes I do understand it. |
Ya-Ta Boy has been trying to educate this forum on this matter. America is a Democratic-Republic...America does not have a multiple party system nor is it Parliamentary. |
This is really the bottom line, Manner: American democracy features an indirect republican-democratic system, and a presidential and not a parliamentary government at that. Expressly structured and staggered to provide stability and prevent the-emotion-of-the-moment from dictating the nation's affairs.
I fear that Ya-ta, Kuros, and I are among a very small few who actually appreciate this.
In any case, for all its current problems, including, I am sad to say, an utterly inept president at the helm, American democracy is alive and well. Your judgment is too harsh and, moreover, simply wrong.
Furthermore, your reducing the entire question to the war issue clouds your vision on this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 11:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I like how Hillary and Obama voted against it. As if it took any political courage. If only Hillary had done that type of voting a few years ago...
The dems did what was politically smart.
And gopher, I think you're reading too much in the "split" between Reid and Pelosi. I think they are quite different and the biggest similarity between the two is they both leaders of their party.
Be interesting to see what happens to the GOP and if it can stay even as closely united as it has since 1994. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sat May 26, 2007 1:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
American democracy is a joke. Yes I do understand it. |
No, I don't think you do fully understand. |
I think he does. He, like most, I'm sure, don't differentiate between saying democracy and republic, though they know the difference. In everyday speech there often is no difference. In other words, you're being needlessly picky
| Quote: |
| America does not have a multiple party system nor is it Parliamentary. |
This is in correct. There is zero limit on the number of parties in the Constitution. There are, in fact, many parties in the US. If you meant to say the US does not have a de facto multi-party system, you might be more accurate.
| Quote: |
| EFLTrainer wrote: |
| Quote: |
Kuros wrote:
You, like many others, need to seperate the issue of whether the war was right to engage in from the matter of whether the US should withdraw troops and if so under what conditions they should do so. |
Absurd. How do you separate the rightness or wrongness of a thing from whether it should be engaged in? The *focus* must shift, and has for most, so I don't understand your comment at all. |
| Quote: |
The fact that you refuse to make a distinction does not mean that others do not. Read the article Joo posted above. Many Americans do make a distinction between the rightness or wrongness of the mission, and whether America should try to stay in Iraq to prevent something much worse than happening.
I do think you have a valid point, EFLTrainer. I just don't personally share it. |
|
Very few are making any distinction. Many are slowly realizing they were simply lied to, and thus, were wrong to have supported the war at all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat May 26, 2007 7:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLTrainer wrote: |
| Quote: |
| America does not have a multiple party system nor is it Parliamentary. |
This is in correct. There is zero limit on the number of parties in the Constitution. There are, in fact, many parties in the US. If you meant to say the US does not have a de facto multi-party system, you might be more accurate. |
| EFLTrainer wrote: |
| you're being needlessly picky |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sat May 26, 2007 9:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| EFLTrainer wrote: |
| Quote: |
| America does not have a multiple party system nor is it Parliamentary. |
This is in correct. There is zero limit on the number of parties in the Constitution. There are, in fact, many parties in the US. If you meant to say the US does not have a de facto multi-party system, you might be more accurate. |
| EFLTrainer wrote: |
| you're being needlessly picky |
|
The clarification was needed. No need to be childish. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sat May 26, 2007 6:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| You might want to take the time to educate yourself rather than scorning and indeed spitting your usual invective at other posters. |
Bwahaha. I think Kuros and I resolved the disagreement just fine. But thanks.
| Quote: |
| Note that I proposed that we ignore each other and I have also asked the mods to enforce this. I have given you several days, perhaps more than a week, to think about this and modify your aggressive, foaming-at-the-mouth, personal-attack-driven behavior. Both you and they have decided to continue the hostility or to look the other way -- which amounts to the same result. |
I have not addressed you on this thread, son.
| Quote: |
| America's First Party System... blah, blah, blah...United States. |
Irrelevant, son. You have missed the point entirely. Kuros had misrepresented what another poster had said. I clarified the point. In fact, it was *I* who pointed out that Kuros would be correct in stating we have a **de facto** two party system, so what do you think you are on about?
Your welcome. Come back any time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat May 26, 2007 7:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There IS such a thing as a problem of standing so close to the forest, that you can't see the trees.
The Democrats ran on a platform, in the mid-term elections, that they would end US involvement in Iraq as soon as possible. That's what the voters wanted, thats why they voted Democrat.
Then, the first opportunity they had to implement what they promised, they caved. Not only that, but they voted an Iraq spending bill that included all kinds of pork-barrelling.
They lied to the people who voted for them.
I understand US 'democracy' all too well.
It's a joke. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sat May 26, 2007 8:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Agreed. I've already started contacting people about a grassroots third party campaign. Gore, Kucinich, Richardson, Paul, Edwards... There's a very electable ticket somewhere in that mix. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pkang0202
Joined: 09 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sat May 26, 2007 9:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I hope this "Democrat meltdown" continues. It'll pave the way for the Guiliani Golden Age. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 1:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| Agreed. I've already started contacting people about a grassroots third party campaign. Gore, Kucinich, Richardson, Paul, Edwards... There's a very electable ticket somewhere in that mix. |
And most of the people who vote for that party will be Demo voters. That's a good idea, because it will split their voting base and open the way for the Repubs to take the presidency again.
Well done sir. |
|
| 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
