|
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 |
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
 Posted: Sun May 25, 2008 11:01 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| I'll admit Obama is comparatively honest for a politician. But he's no fool. In Ohio, he pandered big time on NAFTA. I was pretty digusted with Hillary's position, and at that time was somewhat open for Barack's honesty. But he wasn't honest: he actually agreed with Clinton that the US should unilaterally put pressure on Mexico and Canada to renegotiate the agreement. |
I'm not sure why you think this was dishonest. Perhaps you can eleborate? Agreements between nations are often renegotiated - or attempted - when a new party comes to power. It's a little different from a treaty in that respect, isn't it? A new party comes around in Canada or Mexico, they might start talking the same stuff.
In order to call him dishonest or pandering on this, you'd really have to find some instance where he said good things about NAFTA, or had occassion to, and now he's telling people just what they want to hear exactly and only because they want to hear it. I've seen no indication of it.
In Hiollary's case, though NAFTA was one of the things her husband's administration pointed to as they left office and said "We did this. We accomplished that." Well, she says now, she never liked it, but there's no eveidence that when it was being formulated, debated and pushed through that she felt any such thing.
Isn't it rather the case, Kuros, that you personally agree with FTAs on a philosophical basis? You'd rather Obama felt the same way, but he doesn't. A lot of Americans don't. The economy has gone downhill and this is seen by many as one among several reasons for it. That's the way it is.
But Obama's not being dishonest if he says this - it dovetails with his whole CHANGE trope, and I personally would have been surprised if he had been in favor of NAFTA or FTAs in general.
Hillary says she's against it, too, but when did that happen? After the whoel Bosnia flap, I don't think most people rerally believe what she says anymore - she looks like someone who will say and do anything to get back to sleeping in the East Wing of the White House. She looks like someone who will talk like she "never liked" NAFTA now, and then after the election, well gosh and golly, and gee wiz ...
Gopher;
| Quote: |
| But I think Ya-ta Boy's "W. Bush lost the popular vote" overstates the 50,999, 897: 50,456,002 outcome. This election was literally too close to call. |
The difference between these numbers is pretty close to the population of fairly-large American city like San Francisco - that's how many people voted for Gore and watched their vote get nullified. That's not a small thing.
It's a flawed democracy that allowed a bunch of judges, many of who were put in place by the candidate's father, to appoint the leader of the free world. Add to that all the hoohaw with the voting in Florida, where the candidate's brother called the shots ... when similar things happen in S America, Asia or Africa we just might wink and nod and say, "Well, those place are not REAL democracies, not like ours."
With all that - really, the best recipe possible for voter fatalism and apathy - the truly amazing thing is how many people are galvanized, electrified, excited beyond words at the possibilities in this election. Yes, excited, whether it's Hillary or Barack: excited.
Who's excited about McCain? Anyone at all? If so, give me their phone number, I wanna call 'em up and see what's up with that.
Stop being condescending and tell us more about how ALL the feminist groups oppose Obama.
Sorry if I seem to pick on you. It's very easy to get me to stop, though: stop being WRONG about so many things, or at least be a cool dude and admit it, take your punches like a stand-up guy.
| Quote: |
| Michael Moore, Keith Olbermann, and Rev. J. Wright |
You got Rush Limbaugh, the drug addict, we got Michael Moore, who likes to eat. You got George Will, who once blamed a drought in Africa on socialis, and we got Olberman who's as ready to criticize people on our side as much as people on yours. You got Falwell and Pat Robertson, who blamed 9/11 on gays, and we go tot Rev Wright, who is just as wrong as just as sincere - but I still pick our guys.
Your guys have been doing a lousy job, the country's much worse off than 5 years ago, and Americans can see it.
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee:
| Quote: |
| Saddam did support terror. [...] 9-11 happened because the mideast was the way it was. |
Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, and he had no weapons of mass distruction. Our govt lied to us. Bush and Cheney are guilty of fraud and responsible for the wrongful deaths of several thousand American serviceman who died for no reason beneficial to oiur country. And it goes on. But, hopefully, not for much longer.
Oh, and the middle east is much much more "the way it was" now than it was on Sep 10, 2001. Take that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun May 25, 2008 11:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Bobster wrote: |
[
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee:
| Quote: |
| Saddam did support terror. [...] 9-11 happened because the mideast was the way it was. |
Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, and he had no weapons of mass distruction. Our govt lied to us. Bush and Cheney are guilty of fraud and responsible for the wrongful deaths of several thousand American serviceman who died for no reason beneficial to oiur country. And it goes on. But, hopefully, not for much longer.
Oh, and the middle east is much much more "the way it was" now than it was on Sep 10, 2001. Take that. |
Saddam did support terror. He had lots of items he was not supposed to have. He tried to buy North Korea's most advanced missile. He continued to threaten Kuwait. He shot at US planes. The cold war took a long time to win. The war on terror will be easier than that one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun May 25, 2008 11:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| The Bobster wrote: |
[
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee:
| Quote: |
| Saddam did support terror. [...] 9-11 happened because the mideast was the way it was. |
Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, and he had no weapons of mass distruction. Our govt lied to us. Bush and Cheney are guilty of fraud and responsible for the wrongful deaths of several thousand American serviceman who died for no reason beneficial to oiur country. And it goes on. But, hopefully, not for much longer.
Oh, and the middle east is much much more "the way it was" now than it was on Sep 10, 2001. Take that. |
Saddam did support terror. He had lots of items he was not supposed to have. He tried to buy North Korea's most advanced missile. He continued to threaten Kuwait. He shot at US planes. The cold war took a long time to win. The war on terror will be easier than that one. |
He had nothihng to do with 9/11, and there were no WMDs. The Bush administration lied to the American people and the war is a fraud.
And that's two posts in a row you forgot to say anything about Obama. Stop with the thread hijacking, already. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 12:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
The Bobster"]
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| The Bobster wrote: |
[
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee:
| Quote: |
| Saddam did support terror. [...] 9-11 happened because the mideast was the way it was. |
Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, and he had no weapons of mass distruction. Our govt lied to us. Bush and Cheney are guilty of fraud and responsible for the wrongful deaths of several thousand American serviceman who died for no reason beneficial to oiur country. And it goes on. But, hopefully, not for much longer.
Oh, and the middle east is much much more "the way it was" now than it was on Sep 10, 2001. Take that. |
Saddam did support terror. He had lots of items he was not supposed to have. He tried to buy North Korea's most advanced missile. He continued to threaten Kuwait. He shot at US planes. The cold war took a long time to win. The war on terror will be easier than that one. |
He had nothihng to do with 9/11, and there were no WMDs. The Bush administration lied to the American people and the war is a fraud.
And that's two posts in a row you forgot to say anything about Obama. Stop with the thread hijacking, already.[/quote]
Is it "the war on terror" or "the war on 9-11?" The fact is:
Saddam still supported terror including groups that have dealt with Al Qaeda. and he had stuff he wasn't supposed to have - lots of it. He wasn't going away. Saddam never gave up his war so he had it coming. 9-11 showed the threat that the mideast was to the US it had to be changed. The reason I don't want to say anything about Obama is cause I would prefer not to say negative things about him.
And I don't think the Bush administration lied. They would have come up with another excuse for the war if they knew that Saddam didn't have WMDS. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 5:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| You're highjacking the thread, and you haven't even said anything new for 3 pages. Cut it out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 2:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nice posts, Joo.
Here is something on Obama, by the way. And why is he and his supporters "trying to push and pressure and bully all these superdelegates...?"
| Quote: |
| (CNN) -- Former President Bill Clinton said that Democrats were more likely to lose in November if Hillary Clinton is not the nominee, and suggested some were trying to "push and pressure and bully" superdelegates to make up their minds prematurely... |
CNN Reports |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 2:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Weren't you questioning other posters faith in unsubstantiated claims on another thread? Aren't Clinton's remarks just that? Come on Gopher, don't you think Bill Clinton is a BIT biased? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 3:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Weren't you...? |
Come on, youself. Do you have information that shows that CNN is misquoting Clinton here? Looks to me like it is quoting him directly and extensively. CNN even links video. Bobster wants to talk about Obama. Very well. Let us talk about Obama. What does he have to say about these allegations, I wonder?
And why so defensive re: Obama, Bucheon Bum?
No matter. People are not too happy with Obama in the Caribbean...
| CNN Reports wrote: |
PONCE, Puerto Rico -- Hillary Clinton held the most raucous rally of her Puerto Rico campaign swing on Monday in front of several hundred members of the Servidores P�blicos Unidos union, who shimmied to live music before the event and cheered on the senator with chants of "Si se puede!"
The union operates as an affiliate of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, which has endorsed Clinton and spent millions on her campaign�s behalf. AFSCME President Gerald McEntee was on hand in Ponce to introduce Clinton, but he spent a good chunk of his speech soliciting boos for Barack Obama.
"Obama was here twice," McEntee said, painting the Illinois senator as a Johnny-come-lately to the issues affecting Puerto Ricans. "Once to raise money. He was here for two hours, and he left, and he went on vacation. Then he came back this past weekend for two days, then he left again..." |
And it looks like Obama does not stand above pandering to Cuban-American voters, where he has promised to continue a bad embargo if elected. So the original question remains valid: what does Obama stand for that others and his allegedly bad-thinking predecessors do not if he cannot even distinguish himself from W. Bush on Cuban relations...?
| CNN Reports wrote: |
HAVANA (AP) � Former President Fidel Castro says Sen. Barack Obama's plan to maintain Washington's trade embargo against Cuba will cause hunger and suffering on the island.
In a column published Monday by government-run newspapers, Castro said Obama was "the most-advanced candidate in the presidential race," but noted that he has not dared to call for altering U.S. policy toward Cuba.
"Obama's speech can be translated as a formula for hunger for the country," Castro wrote, referring to Obama's remarks last week to the influential Cuban American National Foundation in Miami... |
Last edited by Gopher on Mon May 26, 2008 4:32 pm; edited 6 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 4:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not saying he's being misquoted. All I'm saying is why should we believe his claims?
I'm sure Obama will ignore them or say that's what they are: unsubstantiated. And if Bill is indeed right, I'm sure people will speak up. I have a feeling this will all we will hear about this claim. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 6:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Bobster wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| I'll admit Obama is comparatively honest for a politician. But he's no fool. In Ohio, he pandered big time on NAFTA. I was pretty digusted with Hillary's position, and at that time was somewhat open for Barack's honesty. But he wasn't honest: he actually agreed with Clinton that the US should unilaterally put pressure on Mexico and Canada to renegotiate the agreement. |
I'm not sure why you think this was dishonest. Perhaps you can eleborate? Agreements between nations are often renegotiated - or attempted - when a new party comes to power. It's a little different from a treaty in that respect, isn't it? A new party comes around in Canada or Mexico, they might start talking the same stuff.
In order to call him dishonest or pandering on this, you'd really have to find some instance where he said good things about NAFTA, or had occassion to, and now he's telling people just what they want to hear exactly and only because they want to hear it. I've seen no indication of it.
In Hiollary's case, though NAFTA was one of the things her husband's administration pointed to as they left office and said "We did this. We accomplished that." Well, she says now, she never liked it, but there's no eveidence that when it was being formulated, debated and pushed through that she felt any such thing.
|
There have been at least two controversies concerning Obama's stance on trade policies.
The Goolsbee fiasco
The Cling comment a transcript of which can be found here.
| Kaus wrote: |
| 3) He's contradicted his own positions--at least on trade and (says Instapundit) guns.. Isn't Obama the one trying to tar Hillary as a supporter of NAFTA? Is that just 'boob bait'? |
Anyway, nobody is going to do anything about NAFTA, and here is why. NAFTA itself has been great for the economy, but its a symbol for where the candidates stand on other trade policy issues.
| Quote: |
| Isn't it rather the case, Kuros, that you personally agree with FTAs on a philosophical basis? You'd rather Obama felt the same way, but he doesn't. A lot of Americans don't. The economy has gone downhill and this is seen by many as one among several reasons for it. That's the way it is. |
As you've seen from the evidence above, this has nothing to do with what I'd rather Obama feel. Both Clinton and Obama have pandered on the issue, so its not as simple as me attacking Obama. I've called him comparatively honest. But I think its dishonest of him to claim he will change politics or that he will tell people things they don't want to hear. Its pretty clear he's already failed with these promises. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
happeningthang
Joined: 26 Apr 2003
|
| Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 7:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
Nice posts, Joo.
Here is something on Obama, by the way. And why is he and his supporters "trying to push and pressure and bully all these superdelegates...?"
| Quote: |
| (CNN) -- Former President Bill Clinton said that Democrats were more likely to lose in November if Hillary Clinton is not the nominee, and suggested some were trying to "push and pressure and bully" superdelegates to make up their minds prematurely... |
CNN Reports |
| Gopher wrote: |
Big_Bird: you and "the documentary" you cite make it far worse than it is. You seize on this or that negative aspect, present the entire thing in that light, and then dramatically condemn it.
I know people on the ground. I know the selection and training they undergo before they arrive. I know they are frustrated with the press around them, who, they reaffirm, do exactly what I outline in the paragraph above.
It is neither the rosy picture you might accuse me of wishing to present here nor the unmitigated, twisted, and macabre death and destruction you describe above, where evil locals dupe misguided, rapacious Americans to settle their personal scores with impunity. It is the fog of war and all of its chaos. No more no less. And you have apparently and uncritically bought into propaganda that presents the Americans as the enemy. This is disappointing. |
http://forums.eslcafe.com/korea/viewtopic.php?t=122047&start=0&sid=c9d8271b29d18c70ae7f31d7589a2d0f
I think Bucheon Bum's got a point. Gopher, do you believe what you're lecturing here, because it looks like you're taking positions of convenience. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 7:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, first of all, I mostly know Bobster and Bucheon Bum as pompous asses who moralize and preach from time to time. The latter also pms messages to posters who stalk me here, where together they apparently track positions I have taken years ago, so I hope you would not judge me too harshly by anything I throw their way. 
Secondly, you ought to relax and see the tongue in the cheek where there is one.
Finally, apparently you object to the allegation-driven discourse when directed against those whose politics you share. I will keep that in mind the next time you get involved in an allegation-driven exchange from the other side, Happeningthang. I know you see it for what it is. Cheers.
P.S. Throwing the allegation-driven discourse the other way for the fun of it notwithstanding, I actually do enjoy bringing up Obama's position to continue the W. Bush Administration's policies toward Cuba while preaching that he represents "change" in American politics -- especially because his position derives from no other principle than he wants Cuban-American voters to support him come November. Washington outsider, indeed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 8:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I hope that was tongue-in-cheek because if I am a pompous ass (entirely possible) then you certainly are. Morality? ha, I think you have me confused with someone else. And if I preach, then I am the most succinct one ever. I do believe you commented on my SHORT wise ass remarks that had little substance. Doesn't sound like preaching to me.
In regards to obama being an "outsider" I agree that is just an act. Also his whole platform of "change" is just old-school political campaigning. Well both of those (being an outsider and in favor of "change") are. As others have noted, he panders just as much as everyone else.
What does make Obama different is he is very articulate and at least comes across as thoughtful. We'll see if he really is or not. And I concede that being thoughtful isn't necessarily a good trait to have as President. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 8:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| And I concede that being thoughtful isn't necessarily a good trait to have as President. |
?? |
|
| 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
