|
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 |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
 Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 1:45 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
I supported the Clinton Administration from start to finish, so rallying around him was easy for me. Here are advice and strategies taken from my own playbook from the last eight years on how to act when someone you do not approve of sits in the Oval Office:
(1) vote against him or her, and then again in the next election; yeah, that is right: get out and flippin' vote, moran;
(2) focus on Congressional, state, and local elections; try to force him or her to modify their behavior as president; and
(3) be constructive. Engage in constructive political activism and/or civil disobedience if you must. But leave the bitterness, the useless sneering, and the antichrist/end-of-the-world hyperbolic demonizing and general wailing to others. Ours is an imperfect political system in an imperfect world. We do not always get what we want. Next election is only four years away. Grow up and deal with it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 2:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
I supported the Clinton Administration from start to finish, so rallying around him was easy for me. Here are advice and strategies taken from my own playbook from the last eight years on how to act when someone you do not approve of sits in the Oval Office:
(1) vote against him or her, and then again in the next election; yeah, that is right: get out and flippin' vote, moran;
(2) focus on Congressional, state, and local elections; try to force him or her to modify their behavior as president; and
(3) be constructive. Engage in constructive political activism and/or civil disobedience if you must. But leave the bitterness, the useless sneering, and the antichrist/end-of-the-world hyperbolic demonizing and general wailing to others. Ours is an imperfect political system in an imperfect world. We do not always get what we want. Next election is only four years away. Grow up and deal with it. |
Are you telling me to grow up?
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gatsby
Joined: 09 Feb 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 3:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
October 10, 2008
In Dozens of Calls, Palins and Aides Pressed for Trooper�s Removal
By SERGE F. KOVALESKI
ANCHORAGE � The 2007 state fair was days away when Alaska�s public safety commissioner, Walt Monegan, took another call about one of his troopers, Michael Wooten. This time, the director of Gov. Sarah Palin�s Anchorage office was on the line
As Mr. Monegan recalls it, the aide said the governor had heard that Mr. Wooten was assigned to work the kickoff to the fair. If so, Mr. Monegan should do something about it, because Ms. Palin was also planning to attend and did not want the trooper nearby.
Somewhat bewildered, Mr. Monegan soon determined that Mr. Wooten had indeed volunteered for duty at the fairgrounds � in full costume as �Safety Bear,� the troopers� child-friendly mascot.
Two years earlier, the trooper and the governor�s sister had been embroiled in a nasty divorce and child-custody battle that had hardened the Palin family against him. To Mr. Monegan and several top aides, the state fair episode was yet another example of a fixation that the governor and her husband, Todd, had with Mr. Wooten and the most granular details of his life.
�I thought to myself, �Man, do they have a heavy-duty network and focus on this guy,� � Mr. Monegan said. �You�d call that an obsession.�
On July 11, Ms. Palin fired Mr. Monegan, setting off a politically charged scandal that has become vastly more so since Ms. Palin became the Republican vice-presidential nominee....
In all, the commissioner and his aides were contacted about Mr. Wooten three dozen times over 19 months by the governor, her husband and seven administration officials, interviews and documents show.
�To all of us, it was a campaign to get rid of him as a trooper and, at the very least, to smear the guy and give him a desk job somewhere,� said Kim Peterson, Mr. Monegan�s special assistant, who like several other aides spoke publicly about the matter for the first time.... |
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/10/us/10trooper.html?_r=1&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all
Christian forgiveness, n. see, "Sarah Palin." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 4:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ha.
I almost prefaced that with a disclaimer of who I was not addressing. But I decided against it for reasons I have forgot.
So yeah, Kuros. And "get a job," too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gatsby
Joined: 09 Feb 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 4:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
ANCHORAGE, Alaska (CNN) -- An investigation into Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's firing of her public safety commissioner can proceed, Alaska's Supreme Court ruled Thursday, clearing the way for a Friday report to the state Legislature on the issue.
Allies of Palin, the Republican vice presidential nominee, had sued to halt the Legislature-initiated investigation, saying the investigation is an attempt by Democrats to sabotage the GOP ticket.
The justices unanimously upheld an Anchorage judge's ruling last week that dismissed the Republican lawsuit and upheld subpoenas for top Palin associates.
The Alaska Legislature's bipartisan Legislative Council unanimously commissioned the investigation in July, the month former Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan says he was fired by Palin.... |
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/09/palin.investigation/index.html
Anyone see a pattern here? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TexasPete
Joined: 24 May 2006
Location: Koreatown
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 5:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
| Is it worrying that the base is being whipped into a terrified and bigoted mob? |
By whom? By McCain-Palin or by those leftist activists who are following them around with camcorders, harassing and baiting them to find smug satisfaction and hopefully fame among other leftists on Youtube.com and elsewhere on the internet? |
So the people who utter such bigotry and the people who yell Obama's a traitor at McCain rallies or the people who yell kill him at Palin rallies aren't responsible for their own words? How exactly are inane utterances by those being shot the fault of the person holding the camera? It must be the cameras and commentators who are responsible for the Cubs spectacular collapses every year, right?
You do realize that your explanation of why people are saying this stuff mirrors the extreme left-wing characature(sp?) paraded by the far right of the apologist lib'ruls who go around shouting it's not the criminals's fault; it's society. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 8:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Frankly, I haven't followed this thread much, but I think it is an insult to have someone like Palin as a potential V.P. when she knows as much about world affairs as George Bush did when he was running for office, and look where that got the country? Couldn't McCain have picked a Republican with foreign policy experience? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 8:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Adventurer wrote: |
| I think it is an insult to have someone like Palin as a potential V.P. Couldn't McCain have picked...? |
Adventurer: are you a registered American voter and, if so, are you a Republican, with an interest in contributing to Republican-Party affairs?
No matter. I will respond: Presidents and Vice-Presidents do not run for Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, National Security Advisor, Director of National Intelligence, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or Director of Central Intelligence, to name several of the foreign-policy experts whose credentials the Senate scrutinizes and verifies when it confirms their appointments. Further, Presidents and Vice-Presidents are about much, much more than mere foreign policy.
Why must a presidential candidate select a running mate narrowly based on "foreign-policy?" What is wrong with "energy," "outsider," and "woman," for example? Did the Democrats select their presidential candidate based on "foreign policy," Adventurer? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 11:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Why must a presidential candidate select a running mate narrowly based on "foreign-policy?" What is wrong with "energy," "outsider," and "woman," for example? Did the Democrats select their presidential candidate based on "foreign policy," Adventurer? |
I wouldn't say that Obama was picked on the basis of foreign-policy alone. However, in my view, it would be accurate to say that, in nominating Obama, the Democrats put forward a man who has continually shown himself to be informed about and conversant in foreign-policy matters, whatever one may think about his views.
I don't think the same can be said about Sarah Palin. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 11:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
This video is funny.
Sarah Palin represents the disenfranchised: the angry, rural, over-50s voter concerned about socialism.
Time to take the country back from the Democrats! Reform!!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 12:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
He name-drops, On the Other Hand. He also knows at least some of the major issues we face, and can articulate an ideological position on them. I have never attacked him on this issue, because I do not agree that we should select presidents based on this or that issue but rather leadership and the people he surrounds himself with, and while I disagree with B. Obama and the people he surrounds himself with, I have never said he lacked leadership ability.
The Democrats, as you may know, have, in recent history, elected weak, weak presidents on foreign affairs. That is their prerogative. But just because B. Obama can talk about this or that in world affairs and considers himself "cosmopolitan," please do not suggest, for example, that he can tell us the difference between, say, a strategy and a tactic, without handler intervention.
And if he can do it, then so could, at a much lower decision-making level, and I mean to point out that most cabinet members have more influence than vice-presidents, S. Palin, a woman with demonstrated leadership abilities, too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 12:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| And if he can do it, then so could, at a much lower decision-making level, and I mean to point out that most cabinet members have more influence than vice-presidents, S. Palin, a woman with demonstrated leadership abilities, too. |
Yes, but again, I am assuming that, in voting for a vice-president, you should regard that person as a potential president from the day after innaguration.
And yes, I am aware that we don't apply that standard to everyone on the chain of succesion, all the way down to postmaster or whatever. But then again, I am not aware of any time in US history where the Prez and the Veep have died or resigned at the same time.
| Quote: |
| The Democrats, as you may know, have, in recent history, elected weak, weak presidents on foreign affairs. |
I'm assuming you include Carter in that. But would you say Clinton was weak on foreign affairs? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 12:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| But would you say Clinton was weak on foreign affairs? |
Yes. Somalia? Kosovo? Rwanda? Yes.
But W. Bush has drudged the GOP's advantage on this issue through the mud. The GOP skilled-foreign-policy brand has been sullied by GWB's idealism. It used to be a repository for pragmatic realists, even Reagan would sit down with the Evil Empire and withdraw troops from Lebanon after taking a hit.
So voters will remember Clinton as being strong on foreign affairs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 12:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Yes. Somalia? Kosovo? Rwanda? Yes.
|
From a perspective of national self-interest(which is the only one from which I think foreign policy can be meaningfully discussed, despite my apparent reputation as a bleeding-heart idealist), would you say that any of those interventions(or lack thereof) that you mention did serious damage to the US?
I mean, for example, will the history books one day record that American interests suffered irreparable damage because Clinton failed to prevent a bunch of tribesmen halfway around the world who had been whipped into a genocidal frenzy by a French-trained priest from carrying out a pogrom? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 1:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Quote: |
Yes. Somalia? Kosovo? Rwanda? Yes.
|
From a perspective of national self-interest(which is the only one from which I think foreign policy can be meaningfully discussed, despite my apparent reputation as a bleeding-heart idealist), would you say that any of those interventions(or lack thereof) that you mention did serious damage to the US?
I mean, for example, will the history books one day record that American interests suffered irreparable damage because Clinton failed to prevent a bunch of tribesmen halfway around the world who had been whipped into a genocidal frenzy by a French-trained priest from carrying out a pogrom? |
No. But Rwanda is the only exception to that on the list. Its on the list because even Clinton himself has admitted it was a failure.
Kosovo was a disaster. In My Life Clinton basically admits we intervened to show Muslims that we were willing to bomb a Christian nation. That worked well. So Albanians love the US now. But we increased to Balkanization, we seriously pissed off Russia, allowing them to use the same justification in Georgia, and we propped up the KLA, a bunch of terrorist gun-runners with no real claim to sovereignty. Disgraceful.
Somalia was more understandable. But the US went beyond the UN mandate to raid a warlord. This wasn't entirely Clinton's fault, he approved Gen. Garrison's raid, but he didn't think it would be done in daylight. (Blackhawks are for night ops! Hel-O!) Nevertheless, the result of the raid was a strategic retreat and a failure for the US. I don't see how that can be characterized as foreign policy strength.
Somalia was arguably a tough situation. Kosovo was a completely unforced mistake that did undermine UN legitimacy. I love Clinton, but not for his foreign affairs prowess. He did play a constructive role in Northern Ireland, however. |
|
| 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
