|
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 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
 Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2010 5:10 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
No, it wasn't Georgia I don't think. It was something or other about some student organization or something. Not really about a country. There was something Jewish about it, if I'm not mistaken.
I'm sure ba can clear it up for us, if he isn't too embarrassed. |
Ah, yes, now I remember. It was neither about Moldavia nor Georgia, but it did involve Dick Cheney.
[quote="On Oct 29, 2007, well over a year before the election when Barack Obama was still a longshot to receive the Democratic nomination and the Yat was supporting Hillary Clinton...
You could not fit a sliver of paper in between the ideologies of Dick Cheney and Barack Obama. |
No, not embarrassed at all.  [/quote]
Ummm...no, it didn't. You are trying the bait and switch tactic again. Sorry, it won't work.
If you put your mind (I know, I know, Plato was a dork and just made up the word) to it, you will think of it. It was something or other about some student group in some eastern European country doing some odd thing and you went pretty much over the top about how this was the first indication of the Apocolypse or some such. Excuse me for not wanting to go back 2 years and search through your posts for the one particular brain-f**t that I remember. While I may not have much of a life, I have more going on than to keep track of your paranoid fantasies. It had nothing whatsoever to do with Cheyney or any other country. Close your eyes and squint. Maybe you'll come up with it.
PS: I was never a Hillary Clinton fan. That must be more of your fantasizing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2010 5:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cdninkorea wrote: |
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| As I said two years ago, economic crises bring the wackos out of the woodwork, and RP is a good example of that. |
How exactly is he a wacko? Is it because he wants the federal gov't to strictly follow the US Constitution? If so, men like Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, etc. are my kind of wackos.
| Quote: |
| RP�s isolationist attitude runs right smack up against the bring-on-Armageddon wing of the Republicans. |
Paul is no isolationist. On the contrary, he wants open trade and good relations with other nations without forcing them to do anything, i.e. meddling in their affrairs. What gives the US the right/ forces them to take on the duty of policing the world?
| Quote: |
| I will confidently predict however that no more than about 1.37% of registered Democrats would be caught dead voting for him. In fact, a Democrat would have to be dead to even consider voting for him. |
Maybe you're right. I'm hoping a lot of Democrats will become Republicans when they see what kind of Republican Ron Paul is.
| Quote: |
| Who, aside from the denizens of Dave�s would vote for him? Women, who his allies say should bear the child of a rapist? |
He doesn't like abortion for religious reasons (that bothers me too, you're not alone on that), but he wants it to be up to the states, since, and I'm paraphrasing here, "the bigger and more difficult the decision, the more it should be decided at local levels."
| Quote: |
| Environmentalists who are not fooled by the anti-science crowd, including the Koch Brothers? |
Pardon my ignorance, but I don't understand this.
| Quote: |
| The unemployed who are held hostage by the right wing on unemployment benefits? |
Maybe. I can't say.
| Quote: |
| The 2/3�s who think the cultural center has a constitutional right to be built, no matter their personal opinion? |
Ron Paul supports the right of Muslims to build a cultural center wherever they want. As he believes in the US Constitution, he believes in property rights.
| Quote: |
| The 80% (?) who were appalled at the Citizens United decision? The blacks who are disgusted at the nonsense about the only 3 members of the New Black Panther Party? |
I can't comment on these as I don't know anything about them.
| Quote: |
| The Hispanics who are being told they will have to carry their papers around all the time in Arizona? Gays who want to get married? |
I think he's against that law in Arizona. As for gay marriage, he wants government out of marriage altogether.
| Quote: |
| That pretty much only leaves the libertarians, who although they won�t admit it, want to deconstruct the national government and turn all power over to the corporations. |
I won't admit it because it's not true.
| Quote: |
| Ideologues are not to be trusted, whether they are left or right, and RP is one. Daddy's proudest moment was when Rand said on national TV that although he himself wasn't a slimey, slobbering, drooling, racist bigot, he saw nothing wrong with other slimey, slobbering, drooling, racist bigots keeping people out of their restaurants if they were not lily white. There is not a dime's worth of difference between a Fundamentalist Christian, an extremist Hindu, an extremist Moslem, a Libertarian (or libertarian), a Nazi or a Communist. The details may differ, but the substance is the same. |
I'd rather an idealogue than a pragmatist, who changes their viewpoints at whim and without justification, resulting in inconsistent decisions and unhappy voters. At least with Ron Paul, you know what he's going to do because of his consistent voting record in the House and because he follows a consistent ideology.
As for Rand Paul, he never said he sees nothing wrong with racism. Quite the contrary, he said he's opposed to it, and said it's the government's place to fight it in public places. Private businesses have a right to be racist if they want to be. I've been refused service at Korean bars becuase I'm not Korean, and while it bothers me a lot, I don't think the government has a place in telling me they have to serve me. After all, it's their business, isn't it? |
1. I will say that you are kind of cute, even though you are a Canadian. Genetics aren't everything.
2.
| Quote: |
| Is it because he wants the federal gov't to strictly follow the US Constitution? If so, men like Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, etc. are my kind of wackos. |
Please explain to me how Washington, Franklin et. al. who were trying their damnedest to establish a strong national government to counteract a weak confederation government would sympathize with you. I'll wait, but not hold my breath.
Secondly on that point, what makes you think that a narrow/strict construction of the Constitution is what the Founders had in mind? Further, what separates you from a religious fundamentalist? Third, why do strict/narrow constructionists suddenly change their view of the Constitution when it comes to issues like religious centers at sites of national disasters? It would be a more interesting conversation if you would just pick a side and stay on it rather than switch back and forth--your approach makes it seem like you don't have a real conviction.
Actually, RP is an isolationist. Isolationists are people who have a very very shallow view of international relations. They pretend that trade is all there is to it. I am also for a much more restricted use of US force, but I see RP as nothing more than a useful fool.
| Quote: |
"the bigger and more difficult the decision, the more it should be decided at local levels."
|
Oh? And what is it that makes geography in relation to your current position so magical in controlling the behavior of government officials?
From Edgar Lee Masters' Spoon River Anthology (1902):
(From Harry Carey Goodhue)
Do you remember when I fought
The bank and the courthouse ring,
For pocketing the interest on public funds?
And when I fought the water works
For stealing streets and raising rates?
And when I fought the business men
Who fought me in these fights?
I fail to see what power you libertarians have (other than wishful thinking) over local government but not state or federal government. Please enlighten me. The practical effect (when you actually have both feet on the ground rather than both of them up in the air over your head) is that you hand over power to larger institutions, like corporations, and strip power away from actual real living breathing individuals. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2010 5:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ^ You are not an elite gate keeper. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2010 5:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Did that actually have a meaning?
(Several minutes later)
Please explain what you mean by 'libertarian' and how anyone you don't agree with on every single detail is not a libertarian. Talking with you guys is like sorting out who is and is not a Christian while holding Catholic doctrine as the 'definition'. It's exhausting and useless, not to say boring. You're all anti-government knee-jerk types with authority issues.
MOD EDIT
Last edited by Ya-ta Boy on Tue Sep 07, 2010 6:07 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2010 6:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Did that actually have a meaning? |
Yes. Your style of argumentation is the product of years of sitting in front of media listening to elite gatekeepers as they gatekeep to the masses. It is quite sad that this style of argumentation works. I expect mouth breathing proles to repeat what their heros on Fox or MSNBC say but you apparently have an education and years of life experience. It's sad. You aren't an elite gatekeeper. Say that three times to yourself every morning. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2010 6:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ummm...that had even less to do with what you said than before.
Take a break, then come back and try again. Maybe it will be clearer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2010 6:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
Ummm...that had even less to do with what you said than before.
Take a break, then come back and try again. Maybe it will be clearer. |
^ This isn't clever. Not 1% clever. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2010 6:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cdninkorea wrote: |
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| As I said two years ago, economic crises bring the wackos out of the woodwork, and RP is a good example of that. |
How exactly is he a wacko? Is it because he wants the federal gov't to strictly follow the US Constitution? If so, men like Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, etc. are my kind of wackos. |
Remember Madison created judicial review, it wasn't in the constitution. If one of the founding fathers was willing to change the constitution than why should we fill so bound by it? It was never meant to be more than a frame work for our system. I doubt that any side or party has a monopoly on what dead men from over a hundred years would or wouldn't do I do get the feeling they wouldn't like self righteous people using them as a political prop, but who knows.
| cdninkorea wrote: |
| Quote: |
| RP�s isolationist attitude runs right smack up against the bring-on-Armageddon wing of the Republicans. |
Paul is no isolationist. On the contrary, he wants open trade and good relations with other nations without forcing them to do anything, i.e. meddling in their affrairs. What gives the US the right/ forces them to take on the duty of policing the world? |
In a world of globalization what happens in other countries has huge effects on us in regards to security and our economy. To pull out of all the international organizations and to stand alone is misguided, irresponsible, and short sighted. There is a middle ground between going to war and doing nothing.
| cdninkorea wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I will confidently predict however that no more than about 1.37% of registered Democrats would be caught dead voting for him. In fact, a Democrat would have to be dead to even consider voting for him. |
Maybe you're right. I'm hoping a lot of Democrats will become Republicans when they see what kind of Republican Ron Paul is. |
Any Democrat who votes for Ron Paul was never really a Democrat anyways. His views are very different.
| cdninkorea wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Who, aside from the denizens of Dave�s would vote for him? Women, who his allies say should bear the child of a rapist? |
He doesn't like abortion for religious reasons (that bothers me too, you're not alone on that), but he wants it to be up to the states, since, and I'm paraphrasing here, "the bigger and more difficult the decision, the more it should be decided at local levels." |
Why is this good logic? I would say that big decisions should be a federal issue and small ones should be local ones. If not imagine the difference you would have between places in the deep south versus the north. It would not be healthy for us to have some states more liberal, which means free by the way, than others. Also look at Hawaii, it's schools have the shortest school year in the nation because of the recession, what happens when one state starts becoming dumber than the rest?
| cdninkorea wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Environmentalists who are not fooled by the anti-science crowd, including the Koch Brothers? |
Pardon my ignorance, but I don't understand this. |
If you support someone, why not understand the money behind the movement?
| cdninkorea wrote: |
| Quote: |
| The unemployed who are held hostage by the right wing on unemployment benefits? |
Maybe. I can't say.
| Quote: |
| The 2/3�s who think the cultural center has a constitutional right to be built, no matter their personal opinion? |
Ron Paul supports the right of Muslims to build a cultural center wherever they want. As he believes in the US Constitution, he believes in property rights.
| Quote: |
| The 80% (?) who were appalled at the Citizens United decision? The blacks who are disgusted at the nonsense about the only 3 members of the New Black Panther Party? |
I can't comment on these as I don't know anything about them.
| Quote: |
| The Hispanics who are being told they will have to carry their papers around all the time in Arizona? Gays who want to get married? |
I think he's against that law in Arizona. As for gay marriage, he wants government out of marriage altogether.
| Quote: |
| That pretty much only leaves the libertarians, who although they won�t admit it, want to deconstruct the national government and turn all power over to the corporations. |
I won't admit it because it's not true. |
In practice thats how it works. Who primarily benefits from removed regulations and taxes? If you can't figure it out, well go on with your rEVOLution.
| cdninkorea wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Ideologues are not to be trusted, whether they are left or right, and RP is one. Daddy's proudest moment was when Rand said on national TV that although he himself wasn't a slimey, slobbering, drooling, racist bigot, he saw nothing wrong with other slimey, slobbering, drooling, racist bigots keeping people out of their restaurants if they were not lily white. There is not a dime's worth of difference between a Fundamentalist Christian, an extremist Hindu, an extremist Moslem, a Libertarian (or libertarian), a Nazi or a Communist. The details may differ, but the substance is the same. |
I'd rather an idealogue than a pragmatist, who changes their viewpoints at whim and without justification, resulting in inconsistent decisions and unhappy voters. At least with Ron Paul, you know what he's going to do because of his consistent voting record in the House and because he follows a consistent ideology.
As for Rand Paul, he never said he sees nothing wrong with racism. Quite the contrary, he said he's opposed to it, and said it's the government's place to fight it in public places. Private businesses have a right to be racist if they want to be. I've been refused service at Korean bars becuase I'm not Korean, and while it bothers me a lot, I don't think the government has a place in telling me they have to serve me. After all, it's their business, isn't it? |
Inflexibility in a national leader has never been a good thing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2010 6:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
PS: @ bacaspar:
You have 417 pages of posts. You can only go through them 15 posts at a time.
I'm sure, if you put your 'mind' to it, you could remember a cockamamie post from Nov./Dec '08 where you claimed some dopey college group seizing power over their student council (or whatever) was the wave of the future.
Say the names of the Eastern European countries slowly...Latvia, Ukraine, Romania....I'm sure one of them will ring a bell.
Frankly, your refusal to remember makes me think this is deliberate on your part. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2010 10:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
Actually, RP is an isolationist. Isolationists are people who have a very very shallow view of international relations. They pretend that trade is all there is to it. I am also for a much more restricted use of US force, but I see RP as nothing more than a useful fool.
|
Actually, Ron Paul is NOT an isolationist. Libertarians are actually as far from isolationist as you can get, for people who are not warmongers.
Ron Paul and Libertarians believe in:
Free trade. Complete and total free trade. Trade barriers and restrictions to trade are the tools of isolationists.
Freedom to travel, anywhere, including Cuba and North Korea, and for foreign visitors to come to the US easily. The more restrictions you have on travel, the more you are an isolationist.
Free Immigration and Emigration with no limits, after you abolish the corrupting influence of the fascist-socialist welfare state. Ron Paul and all libertarians believe that once you abolish all the subsidies and costly socialist programs, that any person who wants to come to the US and work and support themselves and their families should be able to do so.
Non intervention as a foreign policy. Leaving other countries alone and staying out of their business, not attacking other nations. Keeping US forces at home. This is a much more friendly, open and international approach. But, yeah, if attacking other peoples of the Earth because they're different from the US and you like war is your idea of a proper foreign policy, and if you think that being against such a policy is "isolationist" then libertarians and Ron Paul are isolationist.
Being in favor of peace is not isolationist.
I guess the other trolls under that bridge in Ft. Dodge, IA kicked Yata out, so he had to come back and be a troll at Dave's. Too bad, he used to make some good points occasionally. Now, he's 100% troll. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2010 10:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Who primarily benefits from removed regulations and taxes? If you can't figure it out, well go on with your rEVOLution. |
It's the poor and middle classes that primarily benefit from the elimination of socialism, taxes and regulation. Taxes, regulations and all the socialism in the world only benefits the government, powerful politicians and their families, and a select group of powerful special interests. This is true in every nation and in every period of history. No exceptions.
| Quote: |
| Any Democrat who votes for Ron Paul was never really a Democrat anyways. His views are very different |
.
True. The typical modern day Democrat is a fascist.
| Quote: |
| what happens when one state starts becoming dumber than the rest? |
Now, this is an interesting question Leon. Where did you say you're from?
Last edited by ontheway on Tue Sep 07, 2010 10:23 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2010 10:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
There's this presumption on the Left that the pursuit of profit itself is dirty. You see this in Ya-Ta's response: he treats big corporations as suspect (as he should), but passes over the threat posed by centralized, big government.
| Ya-Ta Boy wrote: |
| I fail to see what power you libertarians have (other than wishful thinking) over local government but not state or federal government. Please enlighten me. The practical effect (when you actually have both feet on the ground rather than both of them up in the air over your head) is that you hand over power to larger institutions, like corporations, and strip power away from actual real living breathing individuals. |
The rationale for his distinction? It can't be that corporations alone strip away power from real, living individuals, because the Federal government monopoly does that, too. At heart, its a belief that public is better than private, because public is non-profit or for the common good.
He's wrong. Power corrupts. All power. Public or private. And when you look at Obama's overall poor record on human rights, you begin to see it writ large. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2010 1:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| There's this presumption on the Left that the pursuit of profit itself is dirty. |
That's state education for you, I'm afraid.
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| You see this in Ya-Ta's response: he treats big corporations as suspect (as he should), but passes over the threat posed by centralized, big government. |
That's because of an emotional attachment to a folk understanding of democracy that clouds proponents' ability to think rationally. If it was your kid's homework, it'd be cute as anything, but in an adult, laughable |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cdninkorea
Joined: 27 Jan 2006
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2010 4:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| 1. I will say that you are kind of cute, even though you are a Canadian. Genetics aren't everything. |
Uh, thanks? But what do my genetics (which you know nothing about) have to do with it?
| Quote: |
| Please explain to me how Washington, Franklin et. al. who were trying their damnedest to establish a strong national government to counteract a weak confederation government would sympathize with you. I'll wait, but not hold my breath. |
Well, we know from history that they considered not making a federal government at all because of the dangers of centralised power. They decided to make one, but keep its powers limited, giving all other powers to the states or the people.
| Quote: |
| Secondly on that point, what makes you think that a narrow/strict construction of the Constitution is what the Founders had in mind? |
The way they governed is one clue. Yes, even they breached it, like Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase, but generally speaking, the way the founding fathers governed was confined to the powers granted to them in the constitution.
| Quote: |
| Further, what separates you from a religious fundamentalist? |
Good question. I don't consider the constitution the source of peoples' rights. As the Bill of Rights even says, it recognises, not grants, rights to the people. Plus, it can be simply (but not easily) amended, unlike texts like the Torah or Koran. It's a beautiful document, but not a holy one.
| Quote: |
| Third, why do strict/narrow constructionists suddenly change their view of the Constitution when it comes to issues like religious centers at sites of national disasters? |
I don't. Neither does Ron Paul. I hate it too when people who are supposedly for religious freedom and property rights contradict themselves like that.
| Quote: |
| Actually, RP is an isolationist. Isolationists are people who have a very very shallow view of international relations. They pretend that trade is all there is to it. |
Nah, I disagree.
| Quote: |
| Oh? And what is it that makes geography in relation to your current position so magical in controlling the behavior of government officials? |
It's easier for the little guy (i.e. single citizens or small groups of citizens as opposed to powerful lobby groups) to make their voice heard at the local level, and it mitigates damage if a law's influence is local. Besides, that's one of the good things of the US experiment: states can try things out and see how it works. If it's good, other states can choose to adopt them. So California can legalise drugs and gay marriage, and others can see how it plays out and decide for themselves. Central planning works if the idea is good, but far too often the unintended consequences cause chaos at a national level.
| Quote: |
| The practical effect (when you actually have both feet on the ground rather than both of them up in the air over your head) is that you hand over power to larger institutions, like corporations, and strip power away from actual real living breathing individuals. |
It gives larger institutions like corporations no political power, and any economic power they have, they have to earn in the free market. I don't see a problem with that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2010 5:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Who primarily benefits from removed regulations and taxes? If you can't figure it out, well go on with your rEVOLution. |
It's the poor and middle classes that primarily benefit from the elimination of socialism, taxes and regulation. Taxes, regulations and all the socialism in the world only benefits the government, powerful politicians and their families, and a select group of powerful special interests. This is true in every nation and in every period of history. No exceptions. |
You say this likes its the gospel truth, but I'm still waiting to hear how? Do they benefit from the removal of a minimum wage so they can compete for jobs that don't pay a minimum wage? Do they benefit from lowered safety standards at their job site and no more workers comp? I could go on and on. No exceptions, what about Scandinavia with the highest living standards in the world? I know its a bit of a tired example, but its a fairly obvious one.
| ontheway wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Any Democrat who votes for Ron Paul was never really a Democrat anyways. His views are very different |
.
True. The typical modern day Democrat is a fascist. |
Of course they are. Every one who doesn't agree is a fascist, or a socialist, or a communist.
| ontheway wrote: |
| Quote: |
| what happens when one state starts becoming dumber than the rest? |
Now, this is an interesting question Leon. Where did you say you're from? |
Clever shots versus substantive arguments, now we're getting somewhere! |
|
| 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
