|
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 |
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 7:29 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| I'm... kinda speechless here. Justin, Joo, I'm glad you generally like my posts, and I generally like yours, but I'm afraid we're so far apart on this topic that I better keep my mouth shut before I say something I regret. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 8:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I suspect that someone who had 84 charges of ethics violations against him may not be quite the kind of person I want to listen to on questions of more substance than, "Is the sun shining?" But aside from his basic dishonesty, on this particular issue I see no reason to bow to domestically produced demagogery like Newt's than to foreign produced. I've had enough of the politics of fear over the last 7 years.
Edited to add the negative I missed the first time around.
Last edited by Ya-ta Boy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 11:06 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Justin Hale
Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Location: the Straight Talk Express
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 12:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stillnotking wrote: |
| I'm... kinda speechless here. Justin, Joo, I'm glad you generally like my posts, and I generally like yours, but I'm afraid we're so far apart on this topic that I better keep my mouth *beep* before I say something I regret. |
Well, let's be clear. I do not agree with newt that Islamic terror is an existential threat to the US; ie. that it can make the US cease to exist. Obviously that's hopeless and there's no need to exaggerate because it is a danger and that is sufficient to make the point. Newt didn't say "existential threat" in the above speech, if I recall, and my agreement is with the latter, not with 'existential threat', though it is clear he used the word semantically defensibly (though indefensibly from the perspective of likelihood and reality). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 4:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stillnotking wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| stillnotking wrote: |
Newt Gingrich has never been right about anything, ever, from a foreign policy standpoint. Sorry, I'm not going to start listening to him now.
He's one of those crazies who thinks that Islamic terrorism poses an "existential" threat to the United States. In other words, he's one of those people who doesn't know the meaning of the word "existential" and can't be bothered to look it up. |
If the US is under threat then it can not function |
It always has been under threat, always will be under threat, and has managed to function much better under threat than it currently is. Mostly because a certain political party would rather say "Be afraid! Be very afraid!" than "We have nothing to fear but fear itself". |
9-11 showed how bad that threat was, sad to say for a long time the US underestimated the threat. 9-11 showed that in fact a war was being waged against the US . That war against the US needs to do whatever it takes to end that war.
It seems sadly that too many supporters of Moveon and the Daily Kos are more hostile to the US government than they are to the enemy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 5:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| twg wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| twg wrote: |
| The only thing Newt can do is bellow out neo-con philosophy and cheat on his wives. He should not be listened to. |
It is good to know you don't have a vote. |
Yes, I guess it IS good for you guys because I would have been in line at voting booth the last few elections attempting to keep your nonfunctional neo-con worldview from gaining control of the world's most powerful and influential nation.
As I said, Newt is one step above Limbaugh on the list of "Bellicose neo-con morons that should be isolated and studied for a cure" and anyone who looks up to him is rightly derided |
You are so out of it so it good you don't have a vote. You know TWG you have very strong opinons but you are truely ignorant on world events.
If you had voted in the elections you would have voted despite being clueless. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemcgarrett
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 6:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
stillnotking fretted:
| Quote: |
| we're so far apart on this topic that I better keep my mouth shut before I say something I regret. |
It's never stopped you before--go for it. Or at least have the ba-lls to respond to my reply to your gloating post about how Chomsky supposedly handed Buckley his azz.
I see that this thread's Triumverate of the Left, stillnotking, twg, and NoWhereman refuse to even listen to the video because they hold the speaker is such utter contempt. Meanwhile, posters like me reserve judgment on specific issues before viewing videos of Noam Chomsky and his ilk. This is so typical of the Left, which only projects the appearance of being open-minded.
And how convenient to resort to school marm tactics in criticizing Newt's wayward personal life. Meanwhile Slick Willy goes on his merry way, and so do so many other dallying politicians on the Left. Peter McLaren and Henry Giroux make beds with Chavez, although only dogmatically at this point I guess.
If anyone but Newt or Republican counterparts made this speech, I wonder how you guys would react?
Someone-Else's Toywrote:
| Quote: |
| But aside from his basic honesty, on this particular issue I see no reason to bow to domestically produced demagogery like Newt's than to foreign produced. I've had enough of the politics of fear over the last 7 years. |
I see, so you don't ever listen to Bill Clinton either, eh? Somehow I get the feeling that if you were living in Israel near the Gaza border, you wouldn't be singing this refrain. But I knew I could count on you to raise the red herring of demagoguery even though you can't spell it. Couldn't possibly be that he genuinely feels this way and you just happen to not share his fears, eh?
It's easy to be cynical about this issue from the comfort of your computer desk chair half a world away from terrorism. You have that luxury but hardly the moral perogative. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 11:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Couldn't possibly be that he genuinely feels this way and you just happen to not share his fears, eh?
|
I don't believe he believes a non-state actor has the capacity to destroy the US. I believe he believes that he can prey on people's fear of a serious problem and inflate it into a political role for himself. It's cheap fear-mongering, and you know it. I also believe that you on the right know that the only path to power open for you is to prey on people's fear because you know your ideas are not attractive to the majority. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jaykimf
Joined: 24 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 11:46 am Post subject: Re: GINGRICH LAID IT ON THE LINE IN 2007: DID ANY DEMS LISTE |
|
|
| stevemcgarrett wrote: |
In September of last year Newt Gingrich was asked to respond to a question about the danger posed by rising militant Islam at the National Press Club in Washington. He as articulate, forceful, and concise as always, unlike most other foreign policy *beep* and professors. And it wasn't even intended or delivered as a speech. Here's the CNN video clip link:
http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2007/08/07/sot.newt.gingrich.cnn?iref=mpvideosview
Was anybody in the Democratic Party listening, other than Joe Lieberman?
The eventual nominee in 2008 will have us believe that the Republicans are just using this as a scare tactic. While the crisis certainly works in McCain's favor, it is not a manufactured crisis.
The question is not IF we should confront Islamic militancy on all fronts but IF we can muster the resolve to do so.
I not a Gingrich cheerleader, and I'm an Independent voter who leans to the Right, but I think what he says--echoing much of what Tony Blair maintains even after he stepped down as Prime Minister, must be heeded.
At dawn we slept. At tomorrow's dawn, we sleep again--at our own greater peril. |
There is a big difference between listening to what Newt has to say and agreeing with what he says. Obviously Islamic Militancy is a big problem and I think almost everyone would agree with that. The important question is, what can or should we do about it? Other than suggesting that we should live in fear, Newt doesn't seem to be offering any suggestions about what we should actually do. (at least not in the clip you have presented). If you and Newt want to live your lives in fear, go ahead. I'll be sleeping just fine tomorrow at dawn. I also don't see where Newt said anything about confronting Islamic militancy on all fronts. That seems to be your opinion. What exactly does it mean? Are you suggesting that the U.S. should invade every Islamic country, presumably starting with Iran? Hasn't the occupation of Iraq been a big enough disaster for you? Does it make you feel safer to know that there are thousands of new militants who are ready to martyr themselves in suicide attacks? Just what exactly do you think should be done? Confronting them on all fronts is vague to the point of being meaningless.
Newt clearly stated in the clip that "Iran is desperately trying to build nuclear weapons and they will use them." We now know, and the Bush administration has admitted, that that is not true. Newt is clearly out of the intelligence loop and if nobody listened to him, that probably is a good thing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 11:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Is Islamofascism an existential threat to the U.S.? It is unlikely, but I also find it unlikely that Global Climate Change could be an existential threat.
But each threat is serious.
A nuclear device in the hands of an Islamofascist would be a credible threat. Would it destroy America? Unlikely, but it would inflict undue toll, and the American reaction would be extreme.
Bill Clinton knows the stakes, as does Richard Clarke.
American torture is inexcusable because it is unprofessional. We need real intelligence, and that can come through only diligence and hard work. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 4:29 pm Post subject: Re: GINGRICH LAID IT ON THE LINE IN 2007: DID ANY DEMS LISTE |
|
|
| jaykimf wrote: |
| stevemcgarrett wrote: |
In September of last year Newt Gingrich was asked to respond to a question about the danger posed by rising militant Islam at the National Press Club in Washington. He as articulate, forceful, and concise as always, unlike most other foreign policy *beep* and professors. And it wasn't even intended or delivered as a speech. Here's the CNN video clip link:
http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2007/08/07/sot.newt.gingrich.cnn?iref=mpvideosview
Was anybody in the Democratic Party listening, other than Joe Lieberman?
The eventual nominee in 2008 will have us believe that the Republicans are just using this as a scare tactic. While the crisis certainly works in McCain's favor, it is not a manufactured crisis.
The question is not IF we should confront Islamic militancy on all fronts but IF we can muster the resolve to do so.
I not a Gingrich cheerleader, and I'm an Independent voter who leans to the Right, but I think what he says--echoing much of what Tony Blair maintains even after he stepped down as Prime Minister, must be heeded.
At dawn we slept. At tomorrow's dawn, we sleep again--at our own greater peril. |
There is a big difference between listening to what Newt has to say and agreeing with what he says. Obviously Islamic Militancy is a big problem and I think almost everyone would agree with that. The important question is, what can or should we do about it? Other than suggesting that we should live in fear, Newt doesn't seem to be offering any suggestions about what we should actually do. (at least not in the clip you have presented). If you and Newt want to live your lives in fear, go ahead. I'll be sleeping just fine tomorrow at dawn. I also don't see where Newt said anything about confronting Islamic militancy on all fronts. That seems to be your opinion. What exactly does it mean? Are you suggesting that the U.S. should invade every Islamic country, presumably starting with Iran? Hasn't the occupation of Iraq been a big enough disaster for you? Does it make you feel safer to know that there are thousands of new militants who are ready to martyr themselves in suicide attacks? Just what exactly do you think should be done? Confronting them on all fronts is vague to the point of being meaningless.
Newt clearly stated in the clip that "Iran is desperately trying to build nuclear weapons and they will use them." We now know, and the Bush administration has admitted, that that is not true. Newt is clearly out of the intelligence loop and if nobody listened to him, that probably is a good thing. |
There are lots of ways to deal with the enemy.
Indeed there are military options other than invading.
And what is the reason that people become militants anyway?
Most often it is cause mideast regimes, clerics and elties ecourage them to do so.
Remember the Mideast Street never got angry when Saddam gassed Muslim Kurds; when Assad destroyed the city of Hama, when Khomeini�s fatwa killed 30,000 just in 1988 or when Osama Bin Laden's Al Qaeda killed Muslims in Afghanistan. What religion is the northern alliance?
Most Mideast regimes are close to all powerful within their own nations, and then can kill the terrorists if they choose to do so. All the US has to do is persuade them to do so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jaykimf
Joined: 24 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 4:52 pm Post subject: Re: GINGRICH LAID IT ON THE LINE IN 2007: DID ANY DEMS LISTE |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
Most Mideast regimes are close to all powerful within their own nations, and then can kill the terrorists if they choose to do so. All the US has to do is persuade them to do so. |
The billions of dollars that the U.S. has sent to Pakistan apparently hasn't been enough to persuade them. Just exactly how do we persuade them? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 5:11 pm Post subject: Re: GINGRICH LAID IT ON THE LINE IN 2007: DID ANY DEMS LISTE |
|
|
| jaykimf wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
Most Mideast regimes are close to all powerful within their own nations, and then can kill the terrorists if they choose to do so. All the US has to do is persuade them to do so. |
The billions of dollars that the U.S. has sent to Pakistan apparently hasn't been enough to persuade them. Just exactly how do we persuade them? |
Pakistan is different than other mideast nations.
to: most mideast leaders either you kill the terrorists or the US is going to kill you.
Better weapons will make it easier. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 5:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
The question is not IF we should confront Islamic militancy on all fronts but ...
|
...HOW to do it in the most effective way. The assertions that the Democrats are not interested in national security are nonsense. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 5:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| American torture is inexcusable because it is unprofessional. We need real intelligence, and that can come through only diligence and hard work. |
This is the right argument. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemcgarrett
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 9:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
TaTaBoy imagined:
| Quote: |
| I don't believe he believes a non-state actor has the capacity to destroy the US. |
Who said anything about destroying the U.S.? Did you bother to watch the video? Gingrich was talking about terrorists taking out a city, which is a very grim but real prospect. One needn't be a state player to do that these days and Iran is a state I wouldn't trust anyhow.
| Quote: |
| I believe he believes that he can prey on people's fear of a serious problem and inflate it into a political role for himself. |
And what role would that be considering that he declined efforts for a write-in campaign for president twice in the past decade?
| Quote: |
| It's cheap fear-mongering, and you know it. |
No, I don't know it, nor do I believe it. Scottish media was singing the same tiresome tune until the recent airport incident. Complacency always plays into the hands of the terrorists. If you were a realist instead of a leftwing cynic, you'd know that. Take that second person usage!
| Quote: |
| I also believe that you on the right know that the only path to power open for you is to prey on people's fear because you know your ideas are not attractive to the majority. |
Who is the majority? Neither Party has one, what with the growing ranks of Independents, with which I count myself despite your feeble attempt to caricature me otherwise. |
|
| 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
