|
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 |
Gatsby
Joined: 09 Feb 2007
|
 Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2008 5:17 am Post subject: |
 |
|
I'm not an expert on this Boumediene v. Bush decision. It might help if you spelled things out more clearly for those unfamiliar with court decisions. Korea does not get all the news coverage found in the U.S.
My gripe is still with Bush v. Gore, the decision that threw the election to Bush in 2000. This has not been a truly impartial Supreme Court.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html
The list of real issues that should be raised in this campaign is so long that one does not know where to start. Even if you raised one per day, I don't think you could cover them all before the election.
And I don't think it would change many votes. Evangelical Christians in America do not read mainstream newspapers. No matter what Obama says, or the press reports, they are going to believe whatever their church and the Republican Party tells them. That's why McCain continues to repeat the same lies over and over, despite the press calling on them each time. His voters are not paying attention, or simply discounts the press as biased liberal liars. It's a lot like Koreans not believing Americans when we tell them there is no mad cow disease in America.
There are a lot of people who aren't necessarily evangelicals who don't read or believe the press. Look at all those fools who stayed on Galveston Island through Hurricane Ike. Hurricane forecasts are remarkably accurate these days, at least in terms of path, and slightly less so in terms of wind speed on landfall and tide surge. Nevertheless, thousands of people defied warnings from hurricane forecasters, the press, television, government officials, and even the island's own history of destruction, to stay put. There are a lot of mainstream Americans these days who simply ignore reality staring them in the face.
Do you ever get the feeling that, despite the nation's economy collapsing right in front of their faces, people supporting McCain-Palin are like the Galveston Islanders who stayed home? Some of them actually said they expected God to protect and save them. Wishful thinking seems to be the only reality these people are in touch with.
If you ignore reality and make a really stupid and selfish decision that endangers yourself and others, why should God save you? God didn't save those Galvestonians, and God is not going to save Americans if they ignore reality at the polls in November.
There is at least enough information available to predict the course of the economy and the environment if we don't make major changes fast, and to predict it with a high degree of certainty, just as there was a high degree of certainty that Galveston Island was going to be flooded by Hurricane Ike and many homes destroyed.
But I am going to ignore all those warnings. I am going to vote for McCain and Palin. Why? Because a) I feel like it, and b) because I want to say f**k you to all those snooty liberals who made me feel stupid and a social outcast in school. They aren't going to feel so smart when we right wing evangelical Republicans wreck the U.S. economy, and put all the liberals out of a job, are they?
And besides, after the economy collapses, the Rapture is going to save all of us good Godly Republicans, and we are all going to move to Wasilla, Alaska, where we will shoot mousse and talk in Tongues.
Don't be stupid. Be a smarty. Come and join the Republican Party! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2008 3:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I'm not an expert on this Boumediene v. Bush decision. It might help if you spelled things out more clearly for those unfamiliar with court decisions. Korea does not get all the news coverage found in the U.S. |
Sorry, here's a rundown below.
Basically Boumediene v. Bush was a 5-4 decision (worrying in itself that 4 judges could reject) that maintained that aliens detained as enemy combatants in Guatanamo (and by implication anywhere where the U.S. maintains control ie. Bagram) have a constitutional right to challenge their detention in American courts.
This decision nullifies the MCA (Military Commissions Act) [McCain voted for / Obama against] and rules that there is a guarantee of habeas corpus to all those held by America and who are not POWs (with its own basic guarantees for those held).
Obama has declared that he wants to return America's moral standing in the world. This decision helps and the alarmist cries of McCain are just the same old "cry wolf" tactics the GOP uses over and over.....meanwhile, trampling, destroying the lives of so many, so many innocents who in a civilized world would have the ancient right of the prisoner to require the jailor to show justification in a public court of law (not some kangaroo Military Tribunal). The jailor must declare he has custody of "said person" and justify that. This is the crust of civilization and why we can in the same breath state the present U.S. administration is uncivilized and itself tyranny and terror.
I'm not an expert either but I've followed the series of Supreme and lesser court decisions and the resulting Bush side steps with interest and understanding. There have been a lot of brave people putting their careers on the line in defense of the constitution and an America which sticks to its founding "universalist" principles. These include generals, majors right down to privates on the military side.
By the way, Boumediene was cleared by the Bosnian Supreme Court along with 5 other Algerians. They were freed and then "kidnapped" by U.S. military. Then transported to "Camp X-ray", tortured and they remain in Guantanamo 7 years later.
Here are the statements of McCain and Obama. Also read the reactions of other members of congress. http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/06/more_scotus_reax.html
McCain stated;
| Quote: |
| The United States Supreme Court yesterday rendered a decision which I think is one of the worst decisions in the history of this country. Sen. Graham and Sen. Lieberman and I had worked very hard to make sure that we didn't torture any prisoners, that we didn't mistreat them, that we abided by the Geneva Conventions, which applies to all prisoners. But we also made it perfectly clear, and I won't go through all the legislation we passed, and the prohibition against torture, but we made it very clear that these are enemy combatants, these are people who are not citizens, they do not and never have been given the rights that citizens of this country have. And my friends there are some bad people down there. There are some bad people. So now what are we going to do. We are now going to have the courts flooded with so-called, quote, Habeas Corpus suits against the government, whether it be about the diet, whether it be about the reading material. And we are going to be bollixed up in a way that is terribly unfortunate, because we need to go ahead and adjudicate these cases. By the way, 30 of the people who have already been released from Guantanamo Bay have already tried to attack America again, one of them just a couple weeks ago, a suicide bomber in Iraq. Our first obligation is the safety and security of this nation, and the men and women who defend it. This decision will harm our ability to do that. |
Obama stated;
| Quote: |
| Today's Supreme Court decision ensures that we can protect our nation and bring terrorists to justice, while also protecting our core values. The Court's decision is a rejection of the Bush Administration's attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantanamo - yet another failed policy supported by John McCain. This is an important step toward reestablishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law, and rejecting a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus. Our courts have employed habeas corpus with rigor and fairness for more than two centuries, and we must continue to do so as we defend the freedom that violent extremists seek to destroy. We cannot afford to lose any more valuable time in the fight against terrorism to a dangerously flawed legal approach. I voted against the Military Commissions Act because its sloppiness would inevitably lead to the Court, once again, rejecting the Administration's extreme legal position. The fact is, this Administration's position is not tough on terrorism, and it undermines the very values that we are fighting to defend. Bringing these detainees to justice is too important for us to rely on a flawed system that has failed to convict anyone of a terrorist act since the 9-11 attacks, and compromised our core values. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2008 4:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I was just on the toilet and reached for some "nourishment". Opened up a magazine and came across this timely article. "Who is John McCain?" Tomasky gives a good review of the salient points and also a clear sighted comparison of the McCain of 2000 and the McCain of 2008. Two different headed creatures and showing clearly the McCain is not only a maverick but one that flip flops - seems wherever McCain lays his hat, is his home.....
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21470
DD
http://eflclassroom.ning.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gatsby
Joined: 09 Feb 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2008 2:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
With the American economy teetering on a cliff, what does John McCain have to say?
| Quote: |
| Sept. 16 (Bloomberg) -- John McCain got a jump on rival Barack Obama in addressing the Wall Street crisis yesterday, though the Republican presidential candidate may have caused himself political trouble by saying ``the fundamentals of our economy are strong.'' |
Is John McCain the new Herbert Hoover?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#26727827
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#26727858
If the economy were to collapse, what would McCain do? Offer more tax cuts? Seriously.
McCain's barnyard campaign:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#26727953 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2008 9:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Apparently he invented the BlackBerry?
http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/09/9741_mccains_helped_create_blackberrys.html
| Quote: |
McCain's Top Policy Man: McCain Qualified for Presidency Because He "Helped Create" BlackBerrys
This, I suspect, will be as big a headache for the McCainers as the "How many houses do I own?" episode. I mean, we're still joking about Al Gore inventing the internet eight years later, right?
Asked what work John McCain did as Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee that helped him understand the financial markets, the candidate's top economic adviser wielded visual evidence: his BlackBerry.
"He did this," Douglas Holtz-Eakin told reporters this morning, holding up his BlackBerry. "Telecommunications of the United States is a premier innovation in the past 15 years, comes right through the Commerce committee so you're looking at the miracle John McCain helped create and that's what he did."
Update: For what it's worth, BlackBerry is a Canadian company.
Update Update: The AP gets sassy in its write-up, saying, "McCain has acknowledged that he doesn't know how to use a computer and can't send e-mail, one of the BlackBerry's prime functions."
Too Many Updates!!: The Obama campaign keeps its eye on the ball in its response:
�If John McCain hadn�t said that �the fundamentals of our economy are strong� on the day of one of our nation�s worst financial crises, the claim that he invented the BlackBerry would have been the most preposterous thing said all week,� said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2008 9:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
These pathetic douchebags.
Now they say Tina Fey is a sexist.
http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/tina_feysexist.php
| Quote: |
Carly Fiorina continues the umbrage-fest:
"[T]he portrait [on "SNL"] was very dismissive of the substance of Sarah Palin, and so, in that sense, they were defining Hillary Clinton as very substantive and Sarah Palin as totally superficial," Fiorina argued. "I think that continues the line of argument that is disrespectful in the extreme and yes, I would say, sexist, in the sense that just because Sarah Palin has different views than Hillary Clinton does not mean that she lacks substance."
Now Tina Fey and Amy Poehler are sexists. I just want to be clear here--Fiorina is working on behalf of a guy who once made an incredibly mean joke about Chelsea Clinton, and giggled after one of his supporters called Hillary Clinton a bitch. I don't know if either of those instances were sexist. The first was shockingly cold-hearted, and a serious pot-calls-kettle-black moment given McCain's own lich-like visage. The second was, at best, awkward. I can not believe people will go for this. It just boggles the mind. |
Have they no shame? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gatsby
Joined: 09 Feb 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2008 1:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Carly Fiorina. Now there's an icon of moral integrity and fiscal competence. I'm so glad to see she has a job again.
Want to know how much the McCain-Palin ticket understands economics? Their proposal regarding health insurance may provide a clue:
| Quote: |
September 16, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
McCain�s Radical Agenda
By BOB HERBERT
Talk about a shock to the system. Has anyone bothered to notice the radical changes that John McCain and Sarah Palin are planning for the nation�s health insurance system?
These are changes that will set in motion nothing less than the dismantling of the employer-based coverage that protects most American families.
A study coming out Tuesday from scholars at Columbia, Harvard, Purdue and Michigan projects that 20 million Americans who have employment-based health insurance would lose it under the McCain plan.
There is nothing secret about Senator McCain�s far-reaching proposals, but they haven�t gotten much attention because the chatter in this campaign has mostly been about nonsense � lipstick, celebrities and �Drill, baby, drill!�
For starters, the McCain health plan would treat employer-paid health benefits as income that employees would have to pay taxes on.
�It means your employer is going to have to make an estimate on how much the employer is paying for health insurance on your behalf, and you are going to have to pay taxes on that money,� said Sherry Glied, an economist who chairs the Department of Health Policy and Management at Columbia University�s Mailman School of Public Health.
Ms. Glied is one of the four scholars who have just completed an independent joint study of the plan. Their findings are being published on the Web site of the policy journal, Health Affairs.
According to the study: �The McCain plan will force millions of Americans into the weakest segment of the private insurance system � the nongroup market � where cost-sharing is high, covered services are limited and people will lose access to benefits they have now.�
The net effect of the plan, the study said, �almost certainly will be to increase family costs for medical care.� |
more
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/opinion/16herbert.html?em
What's not to like? You get what you pay for. If you pay more for health insurance, it's got to be better health insurance, right? And we all need more and better health insurance. Brilliant, John McCain!
I'm voting for McCain-Palin in November. Anyone who doesn't is a Commie. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2008 1:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Have they no shame? |
That was a rhetorical question, right?
My prediction: Next Saturday 'Tina Palin' will do a skit with someone imitating her preacher ranting about women serving men or some such. Maybe drag in some old quotes from Phyllis Schaffley.
The more the Republicans rant about SNL being sexist, the better for SNL's ratings, ensuring even more lowest-voting-bracket people watching while the SNL writers skewer the Republicans. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 7:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
McCain answering questions about Spain today:
| Quote: |
Radio Caracol Miami: Senator, finally, let's talk about Spain. If you are elected President, would you be willing to invite President Jos� Luis Rodr�guez Zapatero to the White House to meet with you?
McCain: I would be willing to meet with those leaders who are friends and want to work with us in a cooperative fashion. And by the way, President Calder�n of Mexico is fighting a very tough fight against the drug cartels. I'm glad we are now working in cooperation with the Mexican government on the Merida plan, and I intend to move forward in relations and invite as many of them as I can of those leaders to the White House.
Would that invitation be extended to the Zapatero government, to the president, itself?
Obviously I'd have to look at the relations and the situations and the priorities, but I can assure you I will establish closer relations with our friends, and I will stand up to those who want to do harm to the United States of America. I know how to do both.
So you have to wait and see if he is willing to meet with you - will you be able to do it in the White House?
Well, again, I don't - all I can tell you is I have a clear record of working with leaders in the hemisphere that are friends to us, and standing up to those who are not, and that's judged on the importance of our relationship with Latin America and the entire region.
OK, what about Europe - I'm talking about the president of Spain?
(pause)
What about the what?
Are you willing to meet with him if you're elected president?
I am willing to meet with any leader who is dedicated to the same principles and philosophy that we are for human rights, democracy and freedom, and I will stand up to those that do not. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 7:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Wait, am I reading that right? Does he seem confused about the geographic location of Spain? God damn.
Anyways, this is nonsense:
| Quote: |
| I am willing to meet with any leader who is dedicated to the same principles and philosophy that we are for human rights, democracy and freedom, and I will stand up to those that do not. |
You don't meet leaders to jerk off together. You meet to discuss issues. How in the hell will issues be solved if we're giving the middle finger to each other from our own corner. Stubborn asshole. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 7:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ^ Another 'senior moment'? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 7:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Senior!
Mother Jones has a nice take:
| Quote: |
If you haven't heard about the McCain-Spain snafu, highlighted by Talking Points Memo overnight, here's a quick rundown. My take on the whole thing follows.
McCain did an interview with a Spanish-language radio station. He was asked about a series of Latin American troublemakers, in response to which McCain gave the standard conservative boilerplate about standing up to those that oppose liberty, freedom, etc. The interviewer then asks about Spain and President Zapatero. McCain appears confused by the question or unclear on who Zapatero is and covers by providing more boilerplate about Latin America. He never embraces Spain as an ally, possibly because he doesn't know the questions are about Spain.
At this TPM post, you can hear the interview in English and evaluate for yourself.
Some in the media are already jumping on McCain. I'm more charitable. I don't think McCain can't identify Spain's correct hemisphere. I don't think McCain is uncertain about Spain's status as an ally. I don't think McCain is unaware of Spain's leader. Honestly? I think he didn't hear the interviewer, who was talking quickly and with an accent, when she transitioned to Spain. And after he missed the transition he got confused and either misheard or misunderstood the rest of what was going on.
I think this whole thing is a symptom of McCain's age.
And to be frank, I think it would work better as an attack on McCain if it was framed that way. Is any voter really going to believe that a 20+ year Senator doesn't know where Spain is? They're likely to dismiss that as the (over)zealotry of the liberal media. Questions about age and fitness are much more believable. |
http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/09/9782_mccain_spain_more_generous_interpretation.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
agentX
Joined: 12 Oct 2007
Location: Jeolla province
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 7:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| caniff wrote: |
| ^ Another 'senior moment'? |
More like a "Se�or" moment, actually. 
Anyway, McWarmonger is in hot water again; this time it appears he tried to have the Maliki government toppled.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/17/explosive-gq-piece-mccain_n_127297.html
| Quote: |
An explosive piece in GQ Magazine alleges that in July 2007, John McCain urged President Bush to cut off its ties with the al-Maliki government in Iraq, a move meant to spur reform but one that had the potential to undermine the fragile governing body upon which McCain currently rests such high hopes.
"It suddenly seemed that the efforts of the surge might be for naught," the magazine reports. "And so, shortly after returning from Iraq, McCain and [Sen. Lindsey] Graham visited President Bush at the White House. According to three individuals with knowledge of the July 11 conversation, the pair advised Bush to cut all ties with al-Maliki unless he showed immediate signs of engagement. Such a move on Bush's part would be tantamount to encouraging a coup against Iraq's first democratically elected prime minister, but McCain and Graham saw the situation as a desperate one. We've got a military strategy that's working, they told the president. And it's being undercut by an Iraqi government that's dysfunctional.
"The revelation, which comes as part of a Robert Draper piece entitled "Prisoner of War," sheds new light on the Republican nominee's positions on the Iraq War. It also will likely lead to questions and possibly concerns about McCain's disposition on matters of war and foreign policy.
In addition to the al-Maliki move, Draper reports that in "August 19, 2003, less than four months after President Bush's mission accomplished speech," McCain suggested that the United States military "shoot the looters" who were disrupting the fragile calm of the newly liberated country. As excerpted from the GQ story:
"You've got to shoot the looters," said McCain, suggesting a forceful way to bring the chaos under control. That blunt comment startled several members of the delegation. But McCain, who more than anyone else in the room had championed the war, mostly showed surprising deference to [then Coalition Provisional Authority head Paul] Bremer. The CPA administrator, recalls [Former Congressman Jim] Kolbe, "was very smooth, and the people there had the view that he was on top of things." When he explained his controversial decisions to disband the Iraqi army and de-Baathify the Iraqi government--policies now widely viewed as having fueled the insurgency--McCain did not voice skepticism. Despite years of agitating for Saddam's removal, he had given little thought to what a post-invasion Iraq would look like--beyond vague expectations of "demonstrations of jubilant Iraqis" as he'd penned in a New York Times op-ed just five months earlier. "He assumed," says a close associate, "that Bremer, being on the ground as the president's superenvoy, had a plan."
Drapper's piece confirms many of the statements McCain has made on the campaign trail. For instance, the author reports that the Senator's incessant insistence on having more U.S. troops deployed to the field earned him the nickname within the White House "Johnny one note - more troops, more troops, more troops." That same White House, the piece goes on to note, didn't turn to McCain for advice on the war, because it was transparent what his strategy would be.
In addition, the GQ piece details some of the opinions that McCain's Democratic colleagues in the Senate had of his war proposals. After Iraqi elections in December 2005, for instance, Joseph Biden, now Barack Obama's vice presidential candidate, reportedly derided McCain's optimistic take on the vote as pure "pabulum." Biden and Lindsey Graham, the magazine reports, shared concern that both McCain and Bush weren't acknowledging the inherent fragility (and growing sectarian violence) within the country.
Sen. Russ Feingold, meanwhile, reportedly expressed bewilderment over McCain's insistence that more troops be added to the theater.
"Feingold was perplexed that his colleague remained committed to maintaining, and even growing, an occupying force when some respected military minds believed such a force was only stoking the insurgency.
"It's so ironic," he would say, "because John on these trips is reading military history, and the conversations on the plane are very substantive, and he frequently refers to other situations. He said to me once, 'You need to see The Battle of Algiers.' Which is about the disaster that the French went through with an insurgency. I felt like saying, 'Yeah, that's what I' m talking about!" |
And the rest of the article is here. Including this tidbit:
| Quote: |
But McCain�s Iraq narrative also reveals less flattering traits. If it�s fair to credit McCain with sounding the alarm about Iraq�s security crisis and the need for more troops, it�s equally legitimate to question why he relentlessly agitated for war with so little thought given to the postwar challenges. It�s also worthwhile to wonder why he paid so little heed to respected Senate colleagues like fellow Republican Chuck Hagel and Democrats Jack Reed and Joe Biden. Hagel and Biden had visited Iraq on June 23, 2003�two months before McCain�s first Iraq CODEL�and reported a �devastated� Iraqi infrastructure as well as �a precarious situation on the ground which could, if not urgently addressed, pose significant threats for American troops.� Reed saw the same dangers during his initial trip, six weeks before McCain�s. �I said it quite explicitly when I came back: The security situation is inextricably linked to the country�s economic and social progress,� he recalls.
In other words, senators on both sides of the aisle had for months been saying precisely what McCain apparently heard for the first time from the British lieutenant colonel in Basra. Why hadn�t he listened to them? The answer seems to be that for better or for worse, the prideful nature of the man is such that McCain trusts no one�s experience as much as his own. |
So the man with the most "foreign policy credentials" was in favor of destabilizing the country in the middle of the surge.
If Bush had listened to McCain, who knows who would be in charge of Iraq right now.
McCain's ads say "Country First". I'd like to know which country he's talking about, because it's clearly not ours. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 8:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I think McCain has shown that he puts country first. |
|
| 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
