|
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 |
Pligganease
Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Location: The deep south...
|
 Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 5:46 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Half the Democrats already hate you for challenging golden boy. |
This statement bothers me.
Is this what you really think? Do you really think that people hate Hillary because she's challenging the guy that they've set up for the nomination since the 2004 convention?
I don't buy it.
I'd say that many Democrats don't like Hillary because she's taking the campaign to a place of mud-slinging and negativity. She's damaging the reputation of someone that may represent the party in the upcoming election.
I'd say that many Democrats don't like her because she represents "business as usual" in Washington.
I'd say many Democrats don't like her because she already owes so many favors to both sides of the aisle in D.C.
I'd say many Democrats don't like her because she appears power hungry enough to jeopardize the party in order to secure that power.
I'd say many Democrats don't like her because her campaign is operating as if it's being run by Karl Rove.
I'd say many Democrats don't like her because she is clearly lying to them. She went hunting as a kid and is a church-going devout Christian? Not.
That is why many Democrats don't like her. It isn't because she's going against Obama. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 7:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pligganease wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Half the Democrats already hate you for challenging golden boy. |
This statement bothers me.
Is this what you really think? Do you really think that people hate Hillary because she's challenging the guy that they've set up for the nomination since the 2004 convention?
I don't buy it.
I'd say that many Democrats don't like Hillary because she's taking the campaign to a place of mud-slinging and negativity. She's damaging the reputation of someone that may represent the party in the upcoming election.
I'd say that many Democrats don't like her because she represents "business as usual" in Washington.
I'd say many Democrats don't like her because she already owes so many favors to both sides of the aisle in D.C.
I'd say many Democrats don't like her because she appears power hungry enough to jeopardize the party in order to secure that power.
I'd say many Democrats don't like her because her campaign is operating as if it's being run by Karl Rove.
I'd say many Democrats don't like her because she is clearly lying to them. She went hunting as a kid and is a church-going devout Christian? Not.
That is why many Democrats don't like her. It isn't because she's going against Obama. |
I do not strive to persuade anyone to come to my point of view. My PoV is so far from the common PoV on this forums that such an ambition would be quite the conceit.
Nevertheless, this whole mud-slinging idea is premised on entitlement. This is the idea: Obama is entitled not to have mud slung at him. (I'm not saying that people think Obama is entitled to the nomination, although assuredly SOME people think this is true)
Excuse me. He is running for President of the US. If he can't weather the shit-storm, he needs to get out of the kitchen.
Hillary has drawn a line. She fired a campaign staffer for references to alleged Obama drug-use. She denounced Ferrarro's comments. She does not resort to just any insult or slur to characterize Obama.
My golden boy remarks go to show the excessive reverence many have for this man. Its one thing to be lifted up by hope for Obama. Its another thing to suggest he should be treated special. Indeed, every Democratic primary campaign has been ugly. Its just that some have not seemed this long.
I don't have to reach back to Mondale-Hart to demonstrate this, although that campaign was nasty as well. No, I'll just move to 2004. Here's some perspective.
Frankly, the repeated statements being made, that Clinton has no business attacking Obama, makes me weary. I know that eventually I will have to support Obama, but this idea that I can't advocate for Hillary without damaging the Democrat's chances in the Fall is infuriating. I guess its that feeling that Czarjorge describes as bitter. Its one thing to attack Hillary for her Tuzla statements: those were pretty bad. Its another thing to attack Hillary for pointing out Obama is unfit for office. THATS WHAT CAMPAIGNS ARE FOR!
Now, deep-down, I know better than to think of Obama as a golden boy. I don't think HE thinks he is entitled to the Presidency (although I think 'cocky' is one among his retinue of character flaws, for sure). I refer to Obama as a golden boy only based on the rhetoric flying about on the web. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Milwaukiedave
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Location: Goseong
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 10:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pligganease wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Half the Democrats already hate you for challenging golden boy. |
This statement bothers me.
Is this what you really think? Do you really think that people hate Hillary because she's challenging the guy that they've set up for the nomination since the 2004 convention?
I don't buy it.
I'd say that many Democrats don't like Hillary because she's taking the campaign to a place of mud-slinging and negativity. She's damaging the reputation of someone that may represent the party in the upcoming election.
I'd say that many Democrats don't like her because she represents "business as usual" in Washington.
I'd say many Democrats don't like her because she already owes so many favors to both sides of the aisle in D.C.
I'd say many Democrats don't like her because she appears power hungry enough to jeopardize the party in order to secure that power.
I'd say many Democrats don't like her because her campaign is operating as if it's being run by Karl Rove.
I'd say many Democrats don't like her because she is clearly lying to them. She went hunting as a kid and is a church-going devout Christian? Not.
That is why many Democrats don't like her. It isn't because she's going against Obama. |
You made a good point, if not directly then indirectly. Obama is the front-runner now, but certainly for most of this campaign he was not. This campaign didn't start Jan 08, it started about 14 months ago. For about 12 of those 14 months, Clinton was the front-runner and presumptive nominee. Those that claim otherwise are revising history.
Why was Clinton the frontrunner? She had a large amount of money, she had a powerful network and she had one of the most able campaigners in recent time on her side. Clinton also had a huge advantage in the number of super delegates that backed her. The large super delegate lead has kept Clinton in this race. If you look back to the time when Iowa and New Hampshire happened she was the front-runner. Many people (including the Clinton campaign) thought at that time Obama would falter, despite doing well in Iowa. I would argue the deathblow in the campaign started to happen the day of the Potomac Primaries and the week after that with Wisconsin. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pligganease
Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Location: The deep south...
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 11:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Now, deep-down, I know better than to think of Obama as a golden boy. I don't think HE thinks he is entitled to the Presidency (although I think 'cocky' is one among his retinue of character flaws, for sure). I refer to Obama as a golden boy only based on the rhetoric flying about on the web. |
I won't mention the fact that you used the word "cocky" to describe a man. 
My thoughts go this way:
I like Obama. I would have preferred John Edwards, but I like Obama. The reason I like him is because he isn't a long-term beltway politician. Does this mean he's inexperienced? Hopefully.
See, I am sick of the same old crap going on in Washington. Is Obama going to face challenges if elected? Hells yeah. Will he be smart enough to surround himself with intelligent people to help him? Hells yeah.
Will we be better off if the world sees Americans not as white Christians but as a multi-ethnic society to the point that we elect a bi-racial man with the middle name Hussein to the highest office in the land? Hells yeah.
Is it time we took the power back from the super rich and gave it back to the people? Hells yeah. Will Obama do it? Probably not. Is it a step in the right direction for Americans to elect someone based on hope for the future instead of fear? Hells yeah.
Do we need someone in office that actually knows what it's like to be persecuted? Hells yeah. Do we need someone in the White House who has lived in another country and seen other things than the United States? Hells yeah. Do we need someone in the White House that doesn't view all of Islam as the enemy? Hells yeah. Do we need someone in the White House that has as few favors as possible to pay back while in office? Hells yeah.
Is Obama selling hope? Hells yeah. Does America need it during this time of self-inflicted idiocy and turmoil. Hells yeah.
Am I buying it? Hells yeah. Hook, line, and sinker. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 1:19 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Frankly, the repeated statements being made, that Clinton has no business attacking Obama, makes me weary. I know that eventually I will have to support Obama, but this idea that I can't advocate for Hillary without damaging the Democrat's chances in the Fall is infuriating. I guess its that feeling that Czarjorge describes as bitter. Its one thing to attack Hillary for her Tuzla statements: those were pretty bad. |
My view of the situation is more that he has dealt with attacks on him better than just about any presidential candidate I can think of by essentially shrugging them off and trying not to lower himself to their level.
I was initially with Hillary. I do think she has charisma issues and to throw the mudslinging into overdrive pushes people off the fence and away from her.
She goes all out and Barack, by not going all out against her, wins sympathy.
By her throwing everything including the kitchen sink at him, he's essentially proving how electable he is.
And it's best to get any of the dirty laundry out now before he gets to the GOP.
And her staying in is free media attention while McCain is basically sidelined.
| Quote: |
| Its another thing to attack Hillary for pointing out Obama is unfit for office. THATS WHAT CAMPAIGNS ARE FOR! |
And you also say Hillary says the Dems are gonna be united after the convention. So Hillary's gonna ultimately endorse someone she's said for months is unfit to be president? How genuine would such an endorsement be?
Isn't there a prevailing view that there is too much negative campaigning and not enough debate about the issues? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
R. S. Refugee
Joined: 29 Sep 2004
Location: Shangra La, ROK
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 1:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Pligganease wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Now, deep-down, I know better than to think of Obama as a golden boy. I don't think HE thinks he is entitled to the Presidency (although I think 'cocky' is one among his retinue of character flaws, for sure). I refer to Obama as a golden boy only based on the rhetoric flying about on the web. |
I won't mention the fact that you used the word "cocky" to describe a man.
My thoughts go this way:
I like Obama. I would have preferred John Edwards, but I like Obama. The reason I like him is because he isn't a long-term beltway politician. Does this mean he's inexperienced? Hopefully.
See, I am sick of the same old crap going on in Washington. Is Obama going to face challenges if elected? Hells yeah. Will he be smart enough to surround himself with intelligent people to help him? Hells yeah.
Will we be better off if the world sees Americans not as white Christians but as a multi-ethnic society to the point that we elect a bi-racial man with the middle name Hussein to the highest office in the land? Hells yeah.
Is it time we took the power back from the super rich and gave it back to the people? Hells yeah. Will Obama do it? Probably not. Is it a step in the right direction for Americans to elect someone based on hope for the future instead of fear? Hells yeah.
Do we need someone in office that actually knows what it's like to be persecuted? Hells yeah. Do we need someone in the White House who has lived in another country and seen other things than the United States? Hells yeah. Do we need someone in the White House that doesn't view all of Islam as the enemy? Hells yeah. Do we need someone in the White House that has as few favors as possible to pay back while in office? Hells yeah.
Is Obama selling hope? Hells yeah. Does America need it during this time of self-inflicted idiocy and turmoil. Hells yeah.
Am I buying it? Hells yeah. Hook, line, and sinker. |
Well said, Pligganease. [Not really sure about "Hells yeah" on that point, but what it lacks in grammatical strength it much more than makes up for in sincerity and insight.   ] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 6:56 am Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Frankly, the repeated statements being made, that Clinton has no business attacking Obama, makes me weary. I know that eventually I will have to support Obama, but this idea that I can't advocate for Hillary without damaging the Democrat's chances in the Fall is infuriating. I guess its that feeling that Czarjorge describes as bitter. Its one thing to attack Hillary for her Tuzla statements: those were pretty bad. |
My view of the situation is more that he has dealt with attacks on him better than just about any presidential candidate I can think of by essentially shrugging them off and trying not to lower himself to their level.
I was initially with Hillary. I do think she has charisma issues and to throw the mudslinging into overdrive pushes people off the fence and away from her.
She goes all out and Barack, by not going all out against her, wins sympathy.
By her throwing everything including the kitchen sink at him, he's essentially proving how electable he is.
And it's best to get any of the dirty laundry out now before he gets to the GOP.
And her staying in is free media attention while McCain is basically sidelined.
| Quote: |
| Its another thing to attack Hillary for pointing out Obama is unfit for office. THATS WHAT CAMPAIGNS ARE FOR! |
And you also say Hillary says the Dems are gonna be united after the convention. So Hillary's gonna ultimately endorse someone she's said for months is unfit to be president? How genuine would such an endorsement be?
Isn't there a prevailing view that there is too much negative campaigning and not enough debate about the issues? |
I agree with much of this, Nowhere Man. I think Hillary lacks serious charisma, and as I've said before, she panders too much.
Hillary screwed up. She tried to be everything to everyone. But what she should have emphasized was her commitment to working hard on the serious issues this country faces. Without pandering. Without taking shots at a bar. Etc, etc.
One of the reasons there's so much negativity is that Obama and Clinton are clones on the issues. Thats also why Obama will pick up most of Clinton's support after he wins: their platform is almost identical.
To understand supporters of Hillary, you need to watch her in the debates. Oh, she handles herself well in the debates. Obama comes out with the 'Well, I think, you know . . . [equivocate], [pivot], [snark], [lecture], etc.' Its just sub-par when he doesn't have a teleprompter reading: "Yes, we can."
As for credibility issues with Clinton endorsing Obama, I think everyone understands that she will deep down think she is better qualified. And I think she will emphasize the common ground, issues, issues, issues, that she and Obama have.
Its funny, Obama wants to talk about the issues, but when he refused to be honest about his support for NAFTA, I pretty much said, "Dude, you could have won me here." Because the Hillary-Barack position on NAFTA is bullshit. And they're both lying, anyhow.
| Milwaukiedave wrote: |
| Obama is the front-runner now, but certainly for most of this campaign he was not. This campaign didn't start Jan 08, it started about 14 months ago. For about 12 of those 14 months, Clinton was the front-runner and presumptive nominee. |
You are absolutely correct. And for 13 of these 14 months, Clinton was treated as the presumptive nominee by the media. Which is to say, she got vetted.
Before Iowa, it was Obama doing all the attacking of Hillary. Did anyone cry foul? Not me: he had every right. And Clinton has every right now.
Now, Obama is almost certain to win it. The press treats him that way. The negativity we see is coming much more from the media (witness the questions in the ABC debate).
You think it will stop when Hillary is out? You think it will stop when Obama becomes President? I doubt it.
At least Obama understands this. I'm not sure all Obamaphytes do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 7:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
It's vaguely interesting that both sides in the Clinton/Obama fight on this forum are often lead by people who are otherwise against government acting to help people. I think I've spotted more than one person saying, "If my candidate doesn't win, I'm going to drop out and vote for a Libertarian--you know, the group who says all government is evil."
It's kinda peculiar: If my version of activist government doesn't win, then I want the diametrically opposite version of 90 years ago where the government doesn't do a damn thing for anyone who isn't a member of the 400 Families of New York. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 8:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
It's vaguely interesting that both sides in the Clinton/Obama fight on this forum are often lead by people who are otherwise against government acting to help people. I think I've spotted more than one person saying, "If my candidate doesn't win, I'm going to drop out and vote for a Libertarian--you know, the group who says all government is evil."
It's kinda peculiar: If my version of activist government doesn't win, then I want the diametrically opposite version of 90 years ago where the government doesn't do a damn thing for anyone who isn't a member of the 400 Families of New York. |
It's not that hard to understand. Bush promised a humble foreign policy, no nation-building, smaller government and the country ended up with the opposite. If anything I think it shows a bit more maturity in recognizing (even though it's a bit sad in a certain way) that candidates don't do what they say they're going to do, and voters are more attuned to what they think the candidate will do and which one will be best for the country rather than just checking to see which policy positions of theirs match theirs the most, and then going for that one.
One example of mine is Ron Paul - when somebody else comes along like Bob Barr and has a somewhat similar platform I'm not at all interested because I don't like the guy. Same for Clinton and Obama; Clinton has very similar positions but I don't like her half as much.
The other way to look at it is how the candidates are running their campaigns. Are they out of debt? Are they organized? Are they good at making long-term plans? Can they succeed at appealing to demographics that you wouldn't expect them to be viable towards? All this is equally important I think as simply matching up policy positions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 8:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oh, and I forgot the most important thing I look for in a candidate: Do they ever go off-topic, can they talk about anything else besides their prepared talking points? Are they melodramatic or not?
The more they're willing to talk about anything and answer any subject the better, and melodrama is never good either. Ron Paul, Obama and Biden were all very good in that area. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 8:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| It's not that hard to understand. |
Actually, it is. You have two basic views in American government: The FDR view of government where it can be a tool to help individuals or the government is itself evil and needs to be reduced to the barest minimum. These are the two poles that have existed since Hamilton and Jefferson fought tooth and nail during Washington's first term.
The comment I made in my post above is that we have several posters who have said if he can't have his own version of A then he will go with Z, not B. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 8:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
| It's not that hard to understand. |
Actually, it is. You have two basic views in American government: The FDR view of government where it can be a tool to help individuals or the government is itself evil and needs to be reduced to the barest minimum. These are the two poles that have existed since Hamilton and Jefferson fought tooth and nail during Washington's first term.
The comment I made in my post above is that we have several posters who have said if he can't have his own version of A then he will go with Z, not B. |
I know. That's why I wrote what I did. I don't subscribe to the idea that politics is a two-sided pole.
Edit: I think an analogy would help here. Let's say you have four friends. Two of them say that you should go to university and get some higher education to get ahead in life. Two other friends say it's best to find your own path in life and just start doing what you want, that the four years invested is just a waste.
But within the first two friends (friends A and B) friend A is humble, does well for himself, is honest and has made the world a better place with his education. Friend B is just as educated but he's a bit of a classist, looks down on others, and kind of seems to hate life.
Within the other two friends (friends C and D) friend C is a successful writer, travels a lot, knows all about the world and enjoys life. Friend D also chose not to go to school but he works in a bar, drinks too much and has started to develop a paunch.
Now when you're asked about your views on education, let's say that you still think that a good university education is the best way to get ahead in life. However, you really don't think friend B is a good role model, and you would choose friend C over him any day of the year. So your choices in order of role models will go
friend A (good education, nice guy)
friend C (successful even if you don't agree with his eccentric approach to life)
friend B (well, at least he got an education)
friend D (you don't like his approach to life, and personally you don't like him at all)
And if you believed that real-life experience was more important you'd still go in order of C, then A, then D (at least he's living the way he wants!), then B (bitter and over-educated to the point of being arrogant, yech).
That's why you can't look at politics the same way either, and that's why it's not that hard to understand why someone would go for Paul first (smallest government), then Obama (biggest government), and then all the rest. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 8:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
| It's not that hard to understand. |
Actually, it is. You have two basic views in American government: The FDR view of government where it can be a tool to help individuals or the government is itself evil and needs to be reduced to the barest minimum. These are the two poles that have existed since Hamilton and Jefferson fought tooth and nail during Washington's first term.
The comment I made in my post above is that we have several posters who have said if he can't have his own version of A then he will go with Z, not B. |
What posters are that?
I don't think FDR was half as great as everyone says he is. But I'm still voting for Obama come Fall. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 8:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
My point was that we have several people who say something like the following:
A: Let's go out for dinner, OK?
B: OK. I want beef for dinner.
A: Well, you jerk. No way I'd eat beef. If you insist that we have beef, then I will become a vegetarian. I ain't eating pork or chicken.
I know you are a libertarian, Mith. The aspect I was commenting on was that there are several people who post who say they are 'libertarian' or 'communist'. It's something like you having the choice between Barr and Paul and saying if Paul isn't the party choice, then you'll vote for Stalin.
I don't find politics to be an either/or proposition either, in most situations. However, I do think one's attitude toward government to come down to whether government should be a tool to help people or whether government should be seen as a danger in itself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 8:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I don't think FDR was half as great as everyone says he is. |
I don't either. He may well have been twice as great as everyone says he was.
This month, I'm less into FDR and much more into Woodrow Wilson. MUCH more. Given that economics is at least as much about political ideals as it is about monetary policy, it seems to me that anti-FDR people are too concerned about the bottom line and not concerned enough about the end result.
The way I see it: The GOP had all of Harding's term and Coolidge's term to get things right. They didn't. Poor Mr. Hoover (hero of the first World War) came in and a few months later the economy crashed. He had almost 4 years to fix it. He failed to do anything because he agreed with the GOP idea of letting the rich sit up on Snob Hill while the poor rode their Model T out to California to pick fruit. It isn't the government's responsibility to do anything for anyone but their country club friends. They had 4 years to fix things and they said, "Don't do anything. Let the free market wreck people's lives. It's the system."
FDR came in and said, "We'll try." Now you have revisionist economists who wanted 19th Century policies saying what he did was wrong. Well, pshaw. Had FDR not done what he did, there is an even chance we'd have turned into a Bolshevik state or a Nazi state. FDR saved the capitalists' bacon while they did nothing but tour Europe till the crisis was over. I like capitalism, but capitalists are just ingrates.
Last edited by Ya-ta Boy on Fri Apr 18, 2008 9:11 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| 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
