Site Search:
 
Speak Korean Now!
Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!
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 

ARE BLACK HENS COMING HOME TO ROOST ON BARACK & HILLARY?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
On the other hand



Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue

PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 3:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I don't think anyone is for that, except Paul as you said, and he's not a serious candidate.


Not a serious candidate?! How can you claim such a thing? Are you saying that YouTube doesn't have the same status as a statewide primary?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004

PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 4:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

jkelly80 wrote:
Kuros wrote:
jkelly80 wrote:
I have no problem with HC being divisive. Politics is division, the trick is not to be too overt about courting it.
The problem is I think she'll be another imperial president, judging by her tactics with Congress the first time around.


You suffer that danger with Candidate 'Just-give-me-an-excuse-to-bomb-Pakistan' as well.

Any President will be described as an Imperial President. Except maybe Ron Paul, who wouldn't lift a hand for Darfurs or Burmas if it killed him. Trade-offs, trade-offs.


Sorry I didn't mean "imperial" in the sense of foreign policy. I don't think anyone is for that, except Paul as you said, and he's not a serious candidate. I meant in the FDR--->Nixon--->Cheney continuum of a capricious, arrogant executive branch.


Oh, well in that case I'm a little mystified. What makes you think Clinton is like either of those three?

Oh, and THANK YOU for putting FDR with Nixon and Cheney. I understand what you're saying now!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
jkelly80



Joined: 13 Jun 2007
Location: you boys like mexico?

PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 5:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kuros wrote:
jkelly80 wrote:
Kuros wrote:
jkelly80 wrote:
I have no problem with HC being divisive. Politics is division, the trick is not to be too overt about courting it.
The problem is I think she'll be another imperial president, judging by her tactics with Congress the first time around.


You suffer that danger with Candidate 'Just-give-me-an-excuse-to-bomb-Pakistan' as well.

Any President will be described as an Imperial President. Except maybe Ron Paul, who wouldn't lift a hand for Darfurs or Burmas if it killed him. Trade-offs, trade-offs.



Sorry I didn't mean "imperial" in the sense of foreign policy. I don't think anyone is for that, except Paul as you said, and he's not a serious candidate. I meant in the FDR--->Nixon--->Cheney continuum of a capricious, arrogant executive branch.


Oh, well in that case I'm a little mystified. What makes you think Clinton is like either of those three?

Oh, and THANK YOU for putting FDR with Nixon and Cheney. I understand what you're saying now!


Schlesinger's idea of the Imperial Presidency started with FDR and the New Deal, continued with Truman and the War Powers Act, and continued with Nixon and his shenanigans. Cheney was Ford's chief of staff and never really got over Nixon's resignation. He went about buttressing the position of the executive all through the W administration.

Clinton had the Haiti threat in 92, the Bosnia thing in 95, the Serbia bombing in June 99, and the strike in Khartoum in 98. While Hillary is not Bill, I don't see her shying away from these kinds of interventions, most of which didn't accomplish very much at all.

It's true that legislative should step up, but the War Powers Act effectively skirts Congress. It certainly does avoid partisan bickering, but the last few presidents have proven themselves to be rather dim-witted and shortsighted in their own right, as W has proven in regards to the troop sinkhole in Iraq.

Hitchens on Khartoum: http://www.salon.com/news/1998/09/23news.html

Chapman on Hilary: http://www.reason.com/news/show/121601.html

Imperial Presidency on Amazon: http://tiny.cc/oCASZ
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stevemcgarrett



Joined: 24 Mar 2006

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 8:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

MilwaukieDave:

One thing I do in no uncertain terms really respect about Obama is that while he didn't back the war in Iraq at the start based on his own principles, which he's entitled to, he rose above partisan politics to finance the troops once they were committed to the field. That to me shows he is realistic, unlike Hillary, who votes for the war and then against further support for the boots on the ground.

Hillary had better be careful: her condescending manner (which Bill shares) can easily morph into the perception that she's a plantation owner with Obama working her fields. That antebellum imagery is unfair but in the racially charged Democratic campaign rhetoric it could very well be conjured up by less educated Black voters backing Obama, thinking of backing him, or wanting to protect him as one of their own. I've seen this play out in local politics in the Black community before and Hill-Bill, as liberals seen as working on behalf of Black interests, haven't had their dose of the medicine they helped make.

As it is now, however, Hillary has Bill rep to ride on in keeping older Black community leaders on their side. Even Charles Rangel D-NY has come out publicly to flatly accuse the Obama staff of raising the race issue in the first place.

Does anyone think this truce between Clinton and Obama will last?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Milwaukiedave



Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Location: Goseong

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 8:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nope, I don't see the truce lasting any more then a week at the most. In fact I'd bet a month's pay on it. My guess is Nurse Ratched and her slime machine will go into full tilt boogie spreading lies about Obama.

In fact, Bill Clinton got in a reporters face when asked about the connection between her campaign and the NV lawsuit. And of course the "official response" is:

Quote:
January 17, 2008
Clinton Statement on NV Lawsuit

Here's the text of a statement just put out by the Clinton campaign in response to the decision today by a Nevada court to allow the at-large caucus sites on the Las Vegas strip:

"Nevadans have the opportunity to play a special role in the nominating process on Saturday, and we are thrilled with the energy and support we are seeing across the state. It is clear that Nevadans are excited about participating in this process. While we were not involved in this lawsuit, and have always said that we would play by the rules that we're given, it has always been our hope that every Nevadan should have equal access and opportunity to participate in the caucus. Make no mistake -- the current system that inhibits some shift workers from being able to participate, while allowing others to do so, would seem to benefit other campaigns. More importantly it is unfair. We also are concerned with recent news reports about voter intimidation tactics that would further discourage some Nevadans from participating on Saturday. Our strategy remains the same - we want as many people as possible to participate in the caucus, and we are going to reach out to as many Nevadans as possible in an effort to do as well as possible on Saturday. The Obama campaign has been clear in its belief that whoever wins the culinary union endorsement will win Nevada. We will leave it up to the people of Nevada to make that decision."

Let me see if I can simplify this piece of political jujitsu: "we had nothing to do with the lawsuit and we want everyone to participate, but we support its intent even if the practical result is that thousands of

Democratic caucusgoers would be disenfranchised. Despite such heavy handed tactics by folks friendly to our campaign, please note the Obama camp is the one trying to intimidate voters. And, by the way, Obama has to win."


Last edited by Milwaukiedave on Thu Jan 17, 2008 8:56 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 8:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stevemcgarrett wrote:


Does anyone think this truce between Clinton and Obama will last?


No, their rabid followers and campaigners will say a few inelegant things, which will be translated in the media as a 'flare-up.'

Because there really was no heated back-and-forth between Clinton and Obama, it was all a bunch of media hot air.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Ya-ta Boy



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 10:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I question the use of words like 'condescend' and 'entitle' in reference to Senator Clinton. These are judgements based on one's own perception, not necessarily fact. In this case, I don't think they are facts.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stevemcgarrett



Joined: 24 Mar 2006

PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 6:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

MD predicted:

Quote:
My guess is Nurse Ratched and her slime machine will go into full tilt boogie spreading lies about Obama.


Smile

Obama might need to get Jack Nicholson to endorse him.

Quote:
In fact, Bill Clinton got in a reporters face when asked about the connection between her campaign and the NV lawsuit.


Bill as of late is almost over the top--more than just protective, miffed, or defensive but downright combative. He's likely to "lose it" before his wife if her campaign heads south.

They both insist that they had nothing to do with the Nevadan lawsuit and that the lawsuit had nothing to do with disenfranchisement but, ya know, how come they didn't come out publicly and either disassociate themselves from it or at least emphasize this point before they were backed into a corner?

Something is rotten, I do believe, in the state of Denmark.

It will be interesting to see if the Obama-Clinton scuffle leads to a lasting rift along generation lines in the Black community. That could be very telling.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Yurim



Joined: 02 Oct 2007

PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 7:24 am    Post subject: Re: ARE BLACK HENS COMING HOME TO ROOST ON BARACK & HILL Reply with quote

I wonder if you might be missing relevant points while packing it with coined terms. Society is tolerant enough that race and appearance isn't the issue as much as the platforms that the candidates are standing on. What leads you to believe there's bickering about race?


stevemcgarrett wrote:
THE RACE CARD: no one plays it half as well as the self-appointed Black political leadership and no party has curried it more than the Democrats.

Is poetic justice being served as staunch liberals Hillary and Bill find themselves looking over their shoulders to see if any Black hens are scratching at their heels?

I mean, this is priceless, absolutely and unequivocably priceless. For decades racial allegations have been levied against conservatives, the Republican Party, and anyone who would dare call into question the integrity of a Black political candidate.

Let them cluck all they want, I say!

It's about time Hill-Bill get a taste of their own medicine. Cosby found out the hard way that it doesn't matter if you give your left nut to civil rights, you're suspect the moment you cluck contrary.

Now Obama and his camp are claiming they didn't play the race card but Hill-Bill are insisting just the opposite.

Bob Johnson, the Black entrepeneur, has publicly scolded Obama on this score but before things could escalate, both sides raised the white flag. And just in time to celebrate Black History Month, too.

Perhaps they have enough sense to realize this bickering about race can only hurt them now and in the general election.

Of course, Prez Bill, the "first Black president," feels entitled to point fingers and didn't back off a bit after accusing the Obama camp of a smear campaign. But he, too, had the good sense to go on a popular Black radio talk show and make his case.

And all over having the audacity to suggest that LBJ has as much to do with passage of the civil rights legislation as the venerable King himself. Of course, King is sancrosanct: even an "off-color" (pun intended) joke about him would land any white politician in the hot seat faster than Barry Bonds can inject himself with steriods.

But give me a break, Bill: What did you expect? Did you really think some of Obama's more ardent supporters wouldn't milk this for all it's worth? The question remains whether the mainstream media is hyping this up or with whom, if anyone, their sympathies lie. Bill has already come out insinuating that they're backing Obama.

All I know is that Obama will have NO chance of getting my vote IF he doesn't distance himself quickly from this clucking contest and steer his campaign staffers back to the real issues at hand.

Is he an Arthur Ashe or a Serena Williams?

What say you?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Milwaukiedave



Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Location: Goseong

PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 4:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Now we have allegations of Obama being a "Manchurian Candidate". What next?

January 18, 2008
Dems Target Obama

LAS VEGAS -- False email rumors have been circulating for months suggesting that Barack Obama is some sort of Manchurian Candidate from another culture bent on harming the United States. Hearing John Edwards and Hillary Clinton tell it these days in Nevada, it seems they believe Obama is a Manchurian Democrat, sent from the Republican Party to harm the left's chances of retaking the White House.

Edwards slammed Obama twice
at an event in Las VegasThe way Edwards and Clinton speak, one would be led to believe that Obama is the clear front-runner and that the only way the other two can win is by taking votes away from the popular freshman senator. In separate appearances today, both went out of their way to slam recent comments Obama has made in praise of the Republican Party, and to loud applause.
Speaking to supporters before beginning a nationwide tour, John Edwards took time to claim the mantle of a candidate who can come from behind. "I am not the $100 million candidate. That's the other two guys," he said. "I am the underdog." Before singling out Clinton for taking lobbyist money, a refrain he has long repeated, Edwards turned his attention to Obama. "I have a truly universal health care plan. Senator Obama does not."

Edwards then joined critics of Obama's recent comparisons of his campaign to that of Ronald Reagan, in that both are agents of change. "We know that Ronald Reagan is not an example of change for a presidential candidate who is running in the Democratic Party."

Just half an hour later, joining owners and employees at a small business a few miles away, Clinton echoed the criticisms, citing an interview in which Obama said the GOP was the party of ideas. "My leading opponent the other day said that he thought the Republicans had better ideas than Democrats the last ten to fifteen years. That's not the way I remember the last ten to fifteen years."



Clinton acted as if it were Obama
who led Nevada pollsClinton's shot at her rival came two minutes -- literally -- after her campaign announced a conference call in which Reps. Barney Frank, Corrine Brown and Shelley Berkley would denounce the comments. Frank's sister is top Clinton adviser Ann Lewis, and Berkley represents the Las Vegas-based district from which a large plurality of Democratic caucus-goers will come tomorrow.
Both campaigns sought to portray Obama as the Nevada front-runner despite recent polls showing Clinton ahead. "Senator Obama has an advantage because of the Culinary endorsement," Clark County Commission chairman and Clinton state chair Rory Reid told Politics Nation. "She has significant union support, but the Culinary Union is certainly a factor. They were an endorsement that everybody sought, simply because of their numbers."

Edwards has left Las Vegas and will attend a rally in Oklahoma City later today, the third stop on what the campaign is billing as a nationwide tour. Clinton will hold two rallies, in Elko and in Reno, before joining husband Bill Clinton for a final rally in Henderson, just south of Las Vegas. Obama has rallies planned for Elko and Las Vegas before heading to a Martin Luther King Jr. dinner in Las Vegas.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004

PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 4:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Milwaukiedave wrote:
Now we have allegations of Obama being a "Manchurian Candidate". What next?


Did either Edwards or Clinton use the term "Manchurian Candidate?" It was unclear from your article.

I think the point Edwards and Clinton are making is a fair one. Obama says his opponents are too partisan. Well, Edwards and Clinton are responding by saying that Obama is not partisan enough.

Like the judgment theme, Obama pulled the card and played it. Now he's got to reap the whirlwind.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Milwaukiedave



Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Location: Goseong

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 1:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

While there may be no direct reference in the article itself, this is one of the rumors being spread about him. I have no idea what sites you read other then this one, but if you read other sites, I'm sure your aware of it.

There's no need for a direct connection, just as much as there's no need to guess who was behind the caucus lawsuit in Nevada.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stevemcgarrett



Joined: 24 Mar 2006

PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 8:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

MilwaukieDave discerned:

Quote:
There's no need for a direct connection, just as much as there's no need to guess who was behind the caucus lawsuit in Nevada.


You got that right, bruddah. Can you say "wink and nod?"
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
Page 3 of 3

 
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 © 2018 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