|
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 |
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
 Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2011 9:28 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Leon wrote: |
He's a loser, literally, losing badly twice and going for a third time. No other politician that was such a loser would get the attention that he gets. |
This is one of the main problems I have with the average voter. Many are bandwagon voters. They look at the polls not the substance. No one wants to vote for the person they believe in but for the person who will win so they can tell everyone they voted for the winner.
His platform and to a wee bit extent his personality (although I wouldn't put much stock in that), I can understand. Using the fact he lost as a reason is vapid. Many great people lost elections and lost badly. Would we have been better off with McGovern instead of Nixon? And although he lost in a close race, Gore instead of Bush, using the 'loser' rationale. God help this country. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2011 9:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
I agree with this, I want a degree of humility in my president. I don't want a self righteous person in office, or a grandstander. I don't want someone ideologically pure. Libertarians contain the worst traits possible for office. |
Again, Ron Paul isn't the messiah. I find more than a few things about his platform I don't like. I also like a bit of personality, humility and dignity. However, given a choice between someone who has integrity, even ideologically pure if its a negative, isn't much better over two candidates bought and paid for by big money?
So, using the rationale. Ideologially pure is worse than working for the benefit of the special interest that your guy was bought and paid for.
I'll give the Libertarians this. They have integrity and you know they will make every attempt to do what they say they'll do. Can the same be said of the candidate of either of the two major parties? When has doing what you say you will do become worse than saying you'll do one thing to get elected and acting for the benefit of someone else once you get in? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Friend Lee Ghost
Joined: 06 Jun 2011
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2011 10:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| He's a loser, literally, losing badly twice and going for a third time. No other politician that was such a loser would get the attention that he gets. I hate his smugness, I hate his followers smugness, I dislike people pimping ideology over a flexible approach to politics, I dislike politicians that are grandstanding, like asking congressmen to contribute $100 to give out the congressional medal of honor. I'm not seeing him through anything but honest eyes, the same sorts of eyes that vast majority of other people see him through. |
| jodemas2 wrote: |
| Interestingly, the Gullible Mind is also inwardly gullible because it does not recognize its own gullibility. Instead, it believes it is operating as a Rational Mind. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2011 10:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| Friend Lee Ghost wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| In a way it's not really relevant because Paul isn't running a race to win the GOP nomination, he knows he won't, any serious candidate that lost that many times would either give up or find a way to change what they are doing. Paul is not running for president so much as he is using the election as a platform for his ideas and for himself. |
That many times? He only ran once before for the Republican nomination, in 2008. He ran once before for president, in 1988, as the Libertarian candidate. He got a million votes that tine (including mine).
What's up with this need to see RP through a jaundiced eye? |
He's a loser, literally, losing badly twice and going for a third time. No other politician that was such a loser would get the attention that he gets. I hate his smugness, I hate his followers smugness, I dislike people pimping ideology over a flexible approach to politics, I dislike politicians that are grandstanding, like asking congressmen to contribute $100 to give out the congressional medal of honor. I'm not seeing him through anything but honest eyes, the same sorts of eyes that vast majority of other people see him through. |
It isn't necessary to win the nomination to advance your issues. Although he certainly lost the GOP nomination in 2008, the issues he's advanced, particularly auditing and possibly dismantling the Fed, have become mainstream. Every time someone contributes money, they're subsidizing an effective spokesman for these issues. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2011 10:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Friend Lee Ghost wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| He's a loser, literally, losing badly twice and going for a third time. No other politician that was such a loser would get the attention that he gets. I hate his smugness, I hate his followers smugness, I dislike people pimping ideology over a flexible approach to politics, I dislike politicians that are grandstanding, like asking congressmen to contribute $100 to give out the congressional medal of honor. I'm not seeing him through anything but honest eyes, the same sorts of eyes that vast majority of other people see him through. |
| jodemas2 wrote: |
| Interestingly, the Gullible Mind is also inwardly gullible because it does not recognize its own gullibility. Instead, it believes it is operating as a Rational Mind. |
|
The funny thing is that you wrote that, and attempted to criticize me with it, but just ended up holding a mirror to yourself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2011 10:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Friend Lee Ghost wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| In a way it's not really relevant because Paul isn't running a race to win the GOP nomination, he knows he won't, any serious candidate that lost that many times would either give up or find a way to change what they are doing. Paul is not running for president so much as he is using the election as a platform for his ideas and for himself. |
That many times? He only ran once before for the Republican nomination, in 2008. He ran once before for president, in 1988, as the Libertarian candidate. He got a million votes that tine (including mine).
What's up with this need to see RP through a jaundiced eye? |
He's a loser, literally, losing badly twice and going for a third time. No other politician that was such a loser would get the attention that he gets. I hate his smugness, I hate his followers smugness, I dislike people pimping ideology over a flexible approach to politics, I dislike politicians that are grandstanding, like asking congressmen to contribute $100 to give out the congressional medal of honor. I'm not seeing him through anything but honest eyes, the same sorts of eyes that vast majority of other people see him through. |
It isn't necessary to win the nomination to advance your issues. Although he certainly lost the GOP nomination in 2008, the issues he's advanced, particularly auditing and possibly dismantling the Fed, have become mainstream. Every time someone contributes money, they're subsidizing an effective spokesman for these issues. |
It's hardly mainstream. The tea party is still hardly mainstream. If anything the king makers in the GOP will react more harshly to those ideas in the future. Look at the aftermath of the similarly minded Paul Ryan budget, this ideology will cost the Gop in the end. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2011 11:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Friend Lee Ghost wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| In a way it's not really relevant because Paul isn't running a race to win the GOP nomination, he knows he won't, any serious candidate that lost that many times would either give up or find a way to change what they are doing. Paul is not running for president so much as he is using the election as a platform for his ideas and for himself. |
That many times? He only ran once before for the Republican nomination, in 2008. He ran once before for president, in 1988, as the Libertarian candidate. He got a million votes that tine (including mine).
What's up with this need to see RP through a jaundiced eye? |
He's a loser, literally, losing badly twice and going for a third time. No other politician that was such a loser would get the attention that he gets. I hate his smugness, I hate his followers smugness, I dislike people pimping ideology over a flexible approach to politics, I dislike politicians that are grandstanding, like asking congressmen to contribute $100 to give out the congressional medal of honor. I'm not seeing him through anything but honest eyes, the same sorts of eyes that vast majority of other people see him through. |
It isn't necessary to win the nomination to advance your issues. Although he certainly lost the GOP nomination in 2008, the issues he's advanced, particularly auditing and possibly dismantling the Fed, have become mainstream. Every time someone contributes money, they're subsidizing an effective spokesman for these issues. |
It's hardly mainstream. The tea party is still hardly mainstream. If anything the king makers in the GOP will react more harshly to those ideas in the future. Look at the aftermath of the similarly minded Paul Ryan budget, this ideology will cost the Gop in the end. |
The Tea Party is hardly mainstream? 28% of America identifies with the Tea Party and 70% of Americans think GOP leaders should pay attention to Tea Party ideas.
(http://www.gallup.com/poll/145838/Americans-Believe-GOP-Consider-Tea-Party-Ideas.aspx)
Americans Believe GOP Should Consider Tea Party Ideas
| Quote: |
| About 7 in 10 national adults, including 88% of Republicans, say it is important that Republican leaders in Congress take the Tea Party movement's positions and objectives into account as they address the nation's problems. Among Republicans, 53% rate this "very important." |
(http://www.gallup.com/poll/127181/Tea-Partiers-Fairly-Mainstream-Demographics.aspx)
Tea Partiers Are Fairly Mainstream in Their Demographics
| Quote: |
Tea Party supporters skew right politically; but demographically, they are generally representative of the public at large. That's the finding of a USA Today/Gallup poll conducted March 26-28, in which 28% of U.S. adults call themselves supporters of the Tea Party movement. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2011 11:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Friend Lee Ghost wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| In a way it's not really relevant because Paul isn't running a race to win the GOP nomination, he knows he won't, any serious candidate that lost that many times would either give up or find a way to change what they are doing. Paul is not running for president so much as he is using the election as a platform for his ideas and for himself. |
That many times? He only ran once before for the Republican nomination, in 2008. He ran once before for president, in 1988, as the Libertarian candidate. He got a million votes that tine (including mine).
What's up with this need to see RP through a jaundiced eye? |
He's a loser, literally, losing badly twice and going for a third time. No other politician that was such a loser would get the attention that he gets. I hate his smugness, I hate his followers smugness, I dislike people pimping ideology over a flexible approach to politics, I dislike politicians that are grandstanding, like asking congressmen to contribute $100 to give out the congressional medal of honor. I'm not seeing him through anything but honest eyes, the same sorts of eyes that vast majority of other people see him through. |
It isn't necessary to win the nomination to advance your issues. Although he certainly lost the GOP nomination in 2008, the issues he's advanced, particularly auditing and possibly dismantling the Fed, have become mainstream. Every time someone contributes money, they're subsidizing an effective spokesman for these issues. |
It's hardly mainstream. The tea party is still hardly mainstream. If anything the king makers in the GOP will react more harshly to those ideas in the future. Look at the aftermath of the similarly minded Paul Ryan budget, this ideology will cost the Gop in the end. |
The Tea Party is hardly mainstream? 28% of America identifies with the Tea Party and 70% of Americans think GOP leaders should pay attention to Tea Party ideas.
(http://www.gallup.com/poll/145838/Americans-Believe-GOP-Consider-Tea-Party-Ideas.aspx)
Americans Believe GOP Should Consider Tea Party Ideas
| Quote: |
| About 7 in 10 national adults, including 88% of Republicans, say it is important that Republican leaders in Congress take the Tea Party movement's positions and objectives into account as they address the nation's problems. Among Republicans, 53% rate this "very important." |
(http://www.gallup.com/poll/127181/Tea-Partiers-Fairly-Mainstream-Demographics.aspx)
Tea Partiers Are Fairly Mainstream in Their Demographics
| Quote: |
Tea Party supporters skew right politically; but demographically, they are generally representative of the public at large. That's the finding of a USA Today/Gallup poll conducted March 26-28, in which 28% of U.S. adults call themselves supporters of the Tea Party movement. |
|
28% is mainstream, well debatable I guess. That 70% figure seems useless, I agree that to some extent the republican party should pay lip service to the tea party and pander to them a bit to shore up every bit of support, but if they go to far in that direction they'll lose horribly, and they know it, just because one group is louder than another doesn't make it mainstream. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2011 11:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sirius black wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
I suppose this is simply an unbridgeable gap in our visions of our homeland then. From my perspective, the best place for Mr. "Clown Suit With Ideas" is either in the legislature or in an advisory position. The President should be more than that, and the fact that the Presidents in my lifetime have failed in that regard has seriously harmed my respect for the Office in question. I'm sure I can't be alone in that regard. |
Not alone doesn't make it right. As I stated, most voters value looks and a person wearing a neck tie over a bow tie. I personally wouldn't be proud that I wasn't alone in that regard. |
This is about a single video appearance, or about bow ties and brown suits, or about any other singular thing of that nature. All you are doing here is reinforcing for me that when I said this was an unbridgeable gap, I was right. I'm going to be leaving it at that, because I don't think it's in me to convince you that a President can only "do great things" if he genuinely has the country behind him, something that requires a certain measure of dignity and grandeur that a man like Ron Paul could never, ever muster. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Friend Lee Ghost
Joined: 06 Jun 2011
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2011 12:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| Friend Lee Ghost wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| He's a loser, literally, losing badly twice and going for a third time. No other politician that was such a loser would get the attention that he gets. I hate his smugness, I hate his followers smugness, I dislike people pimping ideology over a flexible approach to politics, I dislike politicians that are grandstanding, like asking congressmen to contribute $100 to give out the congressional medal of honor. I'm not seeing him through anything but honest eyes, the same sorts of eyes that vast majority of other people see him through. |
| jodemas2 wrote: |
| Interestingly, the Gullible Mind is also inwardly gullible because it does not recognize its own gullibility. Instead, it believes it is operating as a Rational Mind. |
|
The funny thing is that you wrote that, and attempted to criticize me with it, but just ended up holding a mirror to yourself. |
Sorry, but I refuse to descend to this level of discourse.
I'm rubber, you're glue...
But I said it first, nyaah, nya, nya, nyaah, naayh  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2011 12:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Friend Lee Ghost wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Friend Lee Ghost wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| He's a loser, literally, losing badly twice and going for a third time. No other politician that was such a loser would get the attention that he gets. I hate his smugness, I hate his followers smugness, I dislike people pimping ideology over a flexible approach to politics, I dislike politicians that are grandstanding, like asking congressmen to contribute $100 to give out the congressional medal of honor. I'm not seeing him through anything but honest eyes, the same sorts of eyes that vast majority of other people see him through. |
| jodemas2 wrote: |
| Interestingly, the Gullible Mind is also inwardly gullible because it does not recognize its own gullibility. Instead, it believes it is operating as a Rational Mind. |
|
The funny thing is that you wrote that, and attempted to criticize me with it, but just ended up holding a mirror to yourself. |
Sorry, but I refuse to descend to this level of discourse.
I'm rubber, you're glue...
But I said it first, nyaah, nya, nya, nyaah, naayh |
what are you babbling about? I'm not interested in your random pop pyschology |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2011 1:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| sirius black wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
I suppose this is simply an unbridgeable gap in our visions of our homeland then. From my perspective, the best place for Mr. "Clown Suit With Ideas" is either in the legislature or in an advisory position. The President should be more than that, and the fact that the Presidents in my lifetime have failed in that regard has seriously harmed my respect for the Office in question. I'm sure I can't be alone in that regard. |
Not alone doesn't make it right. As I stated, most voters value looks and a person wearing a neck tie over a bow tie. I personally wouldn't be proud that I wasn't alone in that regard. |
This is about a single video appearance, or about bow ties and brown suits, or about any other singular thing of that nature. All you are doing here is reinforcing for me that when I said this was an unbridgeable gap, I was right. I'm going to be leaving it at that, because I don't think it's in me to convince you that a President can only "do great things" if he genuinely has the country behind him, something that requires a certain measure of dignity and grandeur that a man like Ron Paul could never, ever muster. |
Is that remotely possible in today's American politics? For a President to get the country behind him to do great things? Like build the Pyramids or invade Cuba? Would we even want that?
I'll take retribution for Wall Street shenanigans. Oh, I'm already asking too much. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2011 1:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Well, not invade Cuba I'd hope, but a glorious national project which is as impressive on a modern scale as the pyramids were for their time would be a wonderful thing for America. You're surely right that in today's political environment such a thing would be impossible, but one can (and perhaps even should) hold out hope for the political environment of tomorrow. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2011 3:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think its very possible for a President to do great things. It all depends on the event. Usually its some external event or threat, not necessarily a military one but it often is, that rallies this country.
Europeans ofen criticize how patriotic and nationalistic Americans are. It is true comparatively. We are simply lacking the event and possibly the person. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2011 3:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I hope and pray this doesn't happen but I can certainly see a scenario if another financial crisis happens realtively soon after the last one, that the country will look for a person who is not tied to the monied elite and will, via their vote, mandate someone to take charge and clean it all up. Someone they deem pretty much incorruptible. |
|
| 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
