Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Advice to Obama: Tell Your Wife to S h u t U p.

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Advice to Obama: Tell Your Wife to S h u t U p.
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

regicide

Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Location: United States

Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 2:48 am Post subject:

stevemcgarrett wrote:

Kuros:

I tend to agree with your assessment of Obama, which is part of his general appeal. But his wife does at times come across as a whiner of the sort that not only turns off Whites but other minorities.

regicide:

Quote:

Look who's talking. I consider torture to be your posts here; written month after month with the same arrogant tone. You are a professor and a professional and you jump on post after post on an anonymous message board. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. And genius--when you jump on these posts it bumps them up. Never thought of that did ya?

Oh, boo-hoo and a little poo. You're still sore that I've called you out as a nutcase--and you are a full-fledged nutcase.

Is that the best you could do, professor?

Justin Hale

Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Location: the Straight Talk Express

Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 3:02 am Post subject:

JMO wrote:

No you havn't. Men and women were having babies long before nation states existed, so it is impossible to say a state is directly responsible for someones existence.

The Irish should be proud their country has emerged as a per capita wealthier country than the Brits. It�s a badge of honor I, and pretty much anyone right of loony left, would wear. It doesn�t follow at all that states don't influence my or your existence because people reproduced before the existence of the states in question. It�s like saying the French and the British weren�t directly responsible for the Concorde because people previously made airplanes. Really, it was a bunch of engineers responsible for the Concorde, but we regard it as Franco-British entity and people in those countries were proud it was made by their countrymen. Those states made the achievement possible. If the Concorde was a thinking being, pride in its dual nationality would be defensible. In our time, nation-states provide necessary preconditions. Actually, they're providing conditions for too few babies being born (low fertility rates). I'm tired of this point because obviously sex between your parents is the sole reason for your existence. I just think state machinery, the quality of the state, is extremely important.

JMO wrote:

you havn't demonstrated any link between these things and nationalism

I�m happy with the position. Sometimes we have alliances with countries we don�t like, but clearly the UK/US special relationship, also a source of pride since together they defeated totalitarianism, is reconcilable with their nationalism, since they are highly nationalistic nations and rightly so. Clearly the French and German alliance is reconcilable with their nationalism. Clearly nationalism is entirely reconcilable with respect, admiration for, alliance with, even pride in other nations.

JMO wrote:

You said you should be proud of the nation you are born in. Therefore the one relevant factor is physical location. If national allegiance is so easily changed by physical location, then it is absurd.

I�ve given an Ireland example, a Japan example, a Germany example on reasons for national pride. You say that because X is American (2 miles from the border with Canada) and Y is Canadian (2 miles from the border with America) their respective nationalistic pride is absurd because another person with pride in a different nation lives 2 miles away in a different nation with different values. That's what I call absurd! Mr. Green

JMO wrote:

Unionists and Loyalists are loyal to the Queen and the Union(the UK). The UK is a nation

They do so with sectarian religious motivation.

JMO wrote:

Religious sectarianism has been a factor in the history of nearly every nation state in Europe, including England

I endorse secular nationalism in our time.

JMO wrote:

As i said, loyalists and Unionists are loyal to the UK. This is not an imaginary entity. Did you even know what unionist means?

Yes, thanks.

They do so with religious motivation. It isn�t the secular nationalism I endorse.

JMO wrote:

Sorry but Cromwell was a protestant and genocidal(he wiped out 20% of the population of Ireland. Acts of attempted genocide normally put you in the monster category. Therefore he was a protestant genocidal monster. The protestant part is admittedly irrelevant, but since the euopean despots were catholic, I thought it gave it good balance. I'll amend it. He was simply a genocidal monster, who British people(who bother to do online polls) put as no. 3 all time. That is how nationalism warps your brain.

You said Cromwell�s views on Catholic despots were of no value because he was a genocidal maniac. You said Hitler�s views on Stalin were of no value because he�s Hitler. It�s a straightforwardly ad hominem nonsense.

The Brits admire Cromwell because the extent of his brutality to the Irish is debatable and he fiercely defended state over Rome, a seminal figure.

JMO wrote:

He wiped out up to 20% of the population with good reason?

I didn�t mean that. I meant he despised Catholicism with good reason. Catholicism is manifestly inferior and primitive compared to Protestantism, since the Protestant Reformation occurred alongside the Renaissance, marking the transition from the medieval to the modern world. Britain was, it follows, a superior state to Ireland and its illiterate peasant Catholics. I employ the same justification to the War on Terror. Though Bush and I differ on every other issue, his decision to declare war on barbarism I passionately support and I love Cromwell for the same reason.

JMO wrote:

Britain was saintly due to independence from foreign tyranny..mmm...I believe if you look at the history books you will see they were the foreign tyranny for roughly 3/4 of the world. Saintly indeed^^

Like I said previously�."All leading European nations built empires, and on the whole the British acquitted themselves well. When ever the British left, by choice or not, the countries they colonized opted, largely, to retain the laws and customs they had inherited. Surely that's a badge of honor.�

Rome gave us the Middle Ages. Britain and America, the quintessential nation-states, had a major say in shaping the modern era. If you expect anyone right of loony left to not be proud of that, you�re in cloud cuckoo land! Laughing

JMO wrote:

Well you have sidestepped the point somewhat..but we can go with this. You are saying, that the roughly 400 million people in the UK and USA(maybe i'm out a few million here) the vast majority of whom you have never met are superior to another group of people(how many are some?). That is idiotic. Also, why some? Why not all? If Britain and the US(and its people..they are the nation after all) are superior to some, why not all?

With Europe, the US and Commowealth I see parity. I like all those countries a great deal, though of course my loyalty is with my own. I bitterly oppose europhobia and anti-Americanism. Israel, Saudi Arabia and Iran � their values, beliefs, influence � are sordid. Several African states spring to mind as well and all concerned should be sterilized. There�s simply no question at all in my mind that certain states are superior to others. Dangerous? I couldn�t care less. I seek a worldwide conspiracy of superior ubermench against the majority, the inferior herd of humanity.

JMO

Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu

Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 4:03 am Post subject:

Justin Hale wrote:

JMO wrote:

No you havn't. Men and women were having babies long before nation states existed, so it is impossible to say a state is directly responsible for someones existence.

Concorde...mmm? There is a difference between a piece of technology which relies on advances before it to come about and human reproduction which has remained unchanged for milennia. This is easily the worst example I have ever heard.

I am glad to see that after quite a few posts you come to the extremely obvious conclusion that sex between parents is the sole reason for existence.

Ireland emerging as a wealthy country is not a badge of honor. I'm not ashamed of Ireland in the 80s for the same reason. I',m sure that people are generally the same whether we are rich or not.

Quote:

Clearly the French and German alliance is reconcilable with their nationalism. Clearly nationalism is entirely reconcilable with respect, admiration for, alliance with, even pride in other nations.

Again you havn't shown how this is clearly so, or at all.

Quote:

They do so with sectarian religious motivation.

Well since the head of their state is also the head of their church, that seems inevitable.

Quote:

I endorse secular nationalism in our time.

I'm talking about nationalism as it really exists not some idealised version that only exists in your head.

Quote:

They do so with religious motivation. It isn�t the secular nationalism I endorse.

Religious and nationalistic motivation. They love their nation just as much as you do. Probably more so in fact, as many of them have fought and died for it. I think you mentioned sacrifices before.

Quote:

I didn;t say they were of no value. I was making the point, that he was very similar to the people that he such a low opinion of.

Quote:

The Brits admire Cromwell because the extent of his brutality to the Irish is debatable and he fiercely defended state over Rome, a seminal figure

Everything is debatable. Its curious you say extent of brutality. Is there a threshold of brutality that would make you not admire him..some kind of brutality table perhaps.^^

Quote:

British people were superior to Irish people because they were illiterate and of a different religion. Thats an incredibly bigoted thing to say. Bush and Cromwell...good comparison^^.

Ireland was part of the UK at the time, Irish royalists(loyal to the crown and nationalists in that sense) were Cromwell's main concern. Ireland was not a seperate state at the time.

The rebellion in Ireland was defeated and the Irish were treated as rebels normally were, with no quarter. If the american revolution had failed, then they would have been treated similarily(didn't they get help from the french also?). Basically you are saying, we are better, because we won. Nice philosophy.

Quote:

If you are a colony of a country for a long time, it is highly unlikey that you will develop wholesale new laws and systems. That is not a badge of honor, its just common sense. Britain and America had a major shape in making the modern era because they were powerful. Once again this amounts to: we are better than you because we won.

Quote:

Several African states spring to mind as well and all concerned should be sterilized. There�s simply no question at all in my mind that certain states are superior to others. Dangerous? I couldn�t care less. I seek a worldwide conspiracy of superior ubermench against the majority, the inferior herd of humanity.

You advocate genocide. Interesting how nationalism is so benign.

Justin Hale

Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Location: the Straight Talk Express

Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 4:57 am Post subject:

JMO wrote:

Ireland emerging as per capita wealthier than its much-hated former oppressor is not a badge of honor only if you don't accept the interpretation. To those who do accept the interpretation, it is.

The Concorde analogy was meant to illustrate that there are such things as de facto [insert nationality] entities which states systematically and purposefully aid. The state is responsible for, encourages, needs, wants babies to be born. Your existence is highly likely to be due to failure to use contraception. Me too, since I am the product of an adulterous night of passion between a Brooklyn police officer and a British mature student. Admitedly this failure to use contraception does nothing to advance the state argument, but nevertheless I owe pride and loyalty to my states as I do my parents, assuming they were decent.

JMO wrote:

Again you havn't shown how this is clearly so, or at all.

The point stands. Have you refuted me? Can you refute me? Manifestly, nationalism is reconcilable with respect for, alliance with other countries.

JMO wrote:

Well since the head of their state is also the head of their church, that seems inevitable.

Indeed. It is religious sectarianism going back to the Reformation that is chiefly responsible. Secular nationalism, which I endorse, is peripheral at most. I advocate love of and pride in states. Those prods advocate love of and pride in opposition to a religion, which, whilst wholly relevant in Cromwell's time, should not be a factor in today's society.

JMO wrote:

I'm talking about nationalism as it really exists not some idealised version that only exists in your head.

The version in my head, the benign, good nationalism that seeks to view a good country as a good father, is the version I'm arguing for. Above, you confess to arguing against a strawman.

JMO wrote:

Religious and nationalistic motivation. They love their nation just as much as you do. Probably more so in fact, as many of them have fought and died for it. I think you mentioned sacrifices before.

If you refer to British conflicts, for example the Falklands or Iraq/Afghanistan, I'd agree. If you're referring to disputes in the name of Northern Ireland remaining part of the Union, I'd totally disagree that they're fighting and dying for the British state. The Battle of Britain was an example of the latter - clearly very different from the scabrous sectarian conflicts to which you refer.

JMO wrote:

I didn;t say they were of no value. I was making the point, that he was very similar to the people that he such a low opinion of.

It depends on the ideas being fought for. Your apparent notion that those who kill are bad and those who don't are good is an indecent, naive, simplistic and erroneous binary. Your entire view on nationalism can be categorized as such.

JMO wrote:

Everything is debatable. Its curious you say extent of brutality. Is there a threshold of brutality that would make you not admire him..some kind of brutality table perhaps.^^

It's possible Cromwell's plunder of the Irish has been exaggerated. Since you have no national pride whatsoever, you will have no problem at all with the following racist slur: the Irish are the most annoyingly sentimental, religious, superstitious, nationalistic morons and it would be by no means a stretch of the wildest and most deluded imagination to say Cromwell's campaign has been exaggerated. It depends which historian you read. How ironic your steadfast commital to the Cromwell campaigns is based on national pride and guinness-fueled fervor.

JMO wrote:

British people were superior to Irish people because they were illiterate and of a different religion. Thats an incredibly bigoted thing to say. Bush and Cromwell...good comparison^^.

JMO wrote:

Basically you are saying, we are better, because we won. Nice philosophy.

Try it the other way around and you've nailed it.

JMO wrote:

That's one way of looking at it. Yet another would be to say that those colonized - regardless of time - had a choice to stick with the status quo or return the country to its prior system. They didn't simply forget.

JMO wrote:

You advocate genocide. Interesting how nationalism is so benign.

I said 'sterilize'. Sterilization = genocide? Grow up, for heaven's sake. Rolling Eyes

JMO

Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu

Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 5:59 am Post subject:

Justin Hale wrote:

The point stands. Have you refuted me? Can you refute me? Manifestly, nationalism is reconcilable with respect for, alliance with other countries.

You havn't made an argument..you have just said that nationalism is reconcilable with those things but not how.

Quote:

Protestants to a large extent in Northern Ireland love their country, without opposition to catholicism being a factor. I think you just do not know many people in northern ireland.

Quote:

The version in my head, the benign, good nationalism that seeks to view a good country as a good father, is the version I'm arguing for. Above, you confess to arguing against a strawman.

What strawman? As I stated at the start, I disagree with nationalism as it exists.

Quote:

If you're referring to disputes in the name of Northern Ireland remaining part of the Union, I'd totally disagree that they're fighting and dying for the British state. The Battle of Britain was an example of the latter - clearly very different from the scabrous sectarian conflicts to which you refer.

They fought and died so northern ireland would remain part of the union. The very definition of fighting for your state.

Quote:

When did i state that thoes who kill are good, and those that don't are bad? Cromwell and European catholic kings were similar. They had similar hatred for each other's religions and similar policies. You seem to be under the impression that Cromwell was right because you believe protestantism to be a superior religion. Please do not go into another flowery advocation of Protestantism's manifest greatness^^.

Quote:

2 points. The Irish are not a race and I prefer Smithwicks to Guinness.

Sorry make that 3. I'm not commited to Cromwell's campaign..would that not mean, that i agree with it and want to carry it on? Maybe choose a different word there.

Quote:

Try it the other way around and you've nailed it.

lol..but you didn't do anything oh armchair general. I'll refer once again to the great Stanhopes take on nationalism. I suggest you take his advice.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQEcMTSgg5w

Quote:

That's pretty unrealistic, especially since alot of these country's were not even countries before colonisation. How can you go back to prior systems that were not there. The British legacy in alot of countries has been bitter civil war and infighting.

Quote:

JMO wrote:
You advocate genocide. Interesting how nationalism is so benign.

I said 'sterilize'. Sterilization = genocide? Grow up, for heaven's sake

In the context of the sentence Sterilization meant just that. But please, what exactly do you mean by sterilization?

If you are arguing for an ideal form of nationalism I suggest we agree to disagree. Whilst I woul think that form flawed, it wouldn;t do much harm I suppose. I oppose real nationalism which drives people to hate others.

Personally I think you embody as a person(or online persona) the worst nationalistic qualities. You believe yourself to be superior to other people based solely on what country they come from. You bristle with pride remembering battles and bloodshed that you had no part in and which I doubt you'd have the stomach for. You are defined by your country/s and therefore lose all identity for yourself. I feel sorry for you. Maybe when you grow as a person you will forsake nationalism as you have forsaken religion. Come round and I''ll buy you a smithwicks.

Justin Hale

Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Location: the Straight Talk Express

Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 10:15 pm Post subject:

Some insurmountable differences of opinion, particularly over whether one can have legitimate pride in a state. I believe yes and refuse to, can't, give up pride in states (probably out of vanity) but I'm not so confident any more that it's legitimate. When someone says something hurtful about my countries, or Europe even, I take it very personally and it's an emotion all would acknowledge as not terribly rational but common and inevitable. However, I suspect we might have common ground here: I find the view that individuals can be superior to other individuals because of states repugnant, but I find that states can be superior to other states axiomatic. I don't believe it follows that individuals in a superior state are superior to individuals in an 'inferior' state and if it does follow - if I can't have my cake and eat it - that's definitely a basis for a re-think. I think your comment 'The Irish are not a race' is problematic, not in itself, but because it was in response to my use of 'racist'. The concept of race from a biological perspective has been debunked but I don't believe it follows racism goes with it. Francophobia, teutophobia, anglophobia, etc are all forms of racism even though the French, Germans, English etc aren't races. Certainly white supremacists are racists and Asian supremacists are racists despite the fact 'race' does not have objective reference.

JMO

Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu

Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:59 am Post subject:

Justin Hale wrote:

Some insurmountable differences of opinion, particularly over whether one can have legitimate pride in a state. I believe yes and refuse to, can't, give up pride in states (probably out of vanity) but I'm not so confident any more that it's legitimate. When someone says something hurtful about my countries, or Europe even, I take it very personally and it's an emotion all would acknowledge as not terribly rational but common and inevitable. However, I suspect we might have common ground here: I find the view that individuals can be superior to other individuals because of states repugnant, but I find that states can be superior to other states axiomatic. I don't believe it follows that individuals in a superior state are superior to individuals in an 'inferior' state and if it does follow - if I can't have my cake and eat it - that's definitely a basis for a re-think.

I think your comment 'The Irish are not a race' is problematic, not in itself, but because it was in response to my use of 'racist'. The concept of race from a biological perspective has been debunked but I don't believe it follows racism goes with it. Francophobia, teutophobia, anglophobia, etc are all forms of racism even though the French, Germans, English etc aren't races. Certainly white supremacists are racists and Asian supremacists are racists despite the fact 'race' does not have objective reference.

You didn;t get the memo? Reasoned and thoughtful replies are not allowed on the internet.

I was being pedantic in regards to the Irish race thing. I would have little problem with a world that displayed your form of ideal secular nationalism, as I would have no problem with ideal religion(which did not interfere in government and many other things). I think we differ in our views on the ramifications of nationalistic outlooks and the prevalence of ideal nationalism over other nationalism.

I definitly feel like I've articulated something that I never gave alot of concious thought to and thank you for the opportunity. I have also shifted a little in thinking that some forms of nationalism are ok in a practical sense, even if in my head they don't make sense.

regicide

Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Location: United States

Posted: Fri Feb 29, 2008 7:08 am Post subject:

[quote="JMO"]

Justin Hale wrote:

even if in my head they don't make sense.

Pluto

Joined: 19 Dec 2006

Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2008 6:53 pm Post subject:

Michelle Obama: Don't go into Corporate America

Michelle Obama wrote:

As she has many times in the past, Mrs. Obama complains about the lasting burden of student loans dating from her days at Princeton and Harvard Law School. She talks about people who end up taking years and years, until middle age, to pay off their debts. �The salaries don�t keep up with the cost of paying off the debt, so you�re in your 40s, still paying off your debt at a time when you have to save for your kids,� she says.

�Barack and I were in that position,� she continues. �The only reason we�re not in that position is that Barack wrote two best-selling books� It was like Jack and his magic beans. But up until a few years ago, we were struggling to figure out how we would save for our kids.� A former attorney with the white-shoe Chicago firm of Sidley & Austin, Obama explains that she and her husband made the choice to give up lucrative jobs in favor of community service. �We left corporate America, which is a lot of what we�re asking young people to do,� she tells the women. �Don�t go into corporate America. You know, become teachers. Work for the community. Be social workers. Be a nurse. Those are the careers that we need, and we�re encouraging our young people to do that. But if you make that choice, as we did, to move out of the money-making industry into the helping industry, then your salaries respond.� Faced with that reality, she adds, �many of our bright stars are going into corporate law or hedge-fund management.�

What she doesn�t mention is that the helping industry has treated her pretty well. In 2006, the Chicago Tribune reported that Mrs. Obama�s compensation at the University of Chicago Hospital, where she is a vice president for community affairs, jumped from $121,910 in 2004, just before her husband was elected to the Senate, to $316,962 in 2005, just after he took office. And that does not count the money Mrs. Obama receives from serving on corporate boards. She would have been O.K. even without Jack�s magic beans.

So she goes into a neighborhood telling people to just settle for less. She's telling people not to enrich their lot in life in Corprate America when she has always enriched herself and continues to do so in Corporate America. That's rich Rolling Eyes

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2008 8:16 pm Post subject:

She's quite obnoxious.

Quote:

In 2006, the Chicago Tribune reported that Mrs. Obama�s compensation at the University of Chicago Hospital, where she is a vice president for community affairs, jumped from $121,910 in 2004, just before her husband was elected to the Senate, to $316,962 in 2005, just after he took office. And that does not count the money Mrs. Obama receives from serving on corporate boards.

[/list]

Milwaukiedave

Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Location: Goseong

Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 4:34 am Post subject:

[quote="Kuros"]She's quite obnoxious.

Quote:

Coming from someone who supports the Queen of obnoxiousness. Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black (no pun intended).

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 5:11 am Post subject:

More Hope and Change... Jammie Wearing Fool found this latest Michelle Obama nugget at The New Yorker: Obama begins with a broad assessment of life in America in 2008, and life is not good: we�re a divided country, we�re a country that is �just downright mean,� we are �guided by fear,� we�re a nation of cynics, sloths, and complacents. �We have become a nation of struggling folks who are barely making it every day,� she said, as heads bobbed in the pews. �Folks are just jammed up, and it�s gotten worse over my lifetime. And, doggone it, I�m young. Forty-four!� Mean like this? http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/03/michelle-obama-were-country-thats.html

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 7:32 am Post subject:

[quote="Milwaukiedave"]

Kuros wrote:

She's quite obnoxious.

Quote:

Coming from someone who supports the Queen of obnoxiousness. Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black (no pun intended).

The more you attack Hillary, the less I'm motivated to vote for Barack in the General.

mithridates

Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency

Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 7:58 am Post subject:

Kuros wrote:

Milwaukiedave wrote:

She's quite obnoxious.

Quote:

Coming from someone who supports the Queen of obnoxiousness. Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black (no pun intended).

The more you attack Hillary, the less I'm motivated to vote for Barack in the General.

Why?

stillnotking

Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA

Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 8:06 am Post subject:

Kuros wrote:

The more you attack Hillary, the less I'm motivated to vote for Barack in the General.

Obama has run an unremittingly positive campaign. How much Clinton dirt could he have dug up, if he were that kind of person? Ever heard the Obama camp mention "Whitewater" other than as a dismissive comparison with Rezko?

If you're basing your voting preference on which candidate has done less negative campaigning, your choice is very clear.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next
Page 7 of 8

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

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe