|
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 |
young_clinton
Joined: 09 Sep 2009
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994
|
Posted: Tue Aug 16, 2011 1:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
First you publically flirt with secession, then you have the gall to use words like 'treacherous' and 'treasonous'? West Texas men must not do irony. That is women's work. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
Posted: Tue Aug 16, 2011 2:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What a laughable charade. Rick Perry will say anything to get elected. This ex-campaign manager of Al Gore, Bilderberg attendee, and all around globalist needs to endear himself to the Tea Party types to get votes. That is ALL this type of talk is about; he would never even dream of opposing the Federal Reserve. Just like Obama lied to everyone, making them believe that if he got elected the wars would end, all their problems would be solved, their mortgages would get paid off, and their cars would magically fill themselves up with gas etc. etc...
Rick Perry is a duplicitous political hack through and through. Far from threatening "to secede" as Ya-ta alleges (which would have been a great moment, calling the criminal Feds on their bluff to put a blockade against Texas, as if it were some third world country like Iran or Libya to boss around), he was pressured to introduce the bill to stop the TSA Nazis from molesting people into the Texas legislature (since pretty well everyone is overwhelmingly opposed to the TSA's activities). Then when it was passed unanimously, he and his crony David Dewhurst had the whole thing scuttled behind the scenes in the Senate. These are the type of people they are: they say one thing to sound good to the public (talk the talk)), and do another behind the scenes. Nothing but empty rhetoric and dirty tricks.
Basically, anyone who votes for this guy is as naive (or just plain dumb) as anyone who voted for Obama. If Rick Perry ever gets elected, he'll be like GW Bush on steroids, and continue all the same ruinous policies as Obama (including giving more power to the Federal Reserve). Despite his new-found libertarian-esque rhetoric (totally empty), Perry has one of the most abysmal records of any politician I can think of. Actions matter, WORDS DON'T. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
lithium

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
|
Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2011 5:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
visitorq wrote: |
What a laughable charade. Rick Perry will say anything to get elected. This ex-campaign manager of Al Gore, Bilderberg attendee, and all around globalist needs to endear himself to the Tea Party types to get votes. That is ALL this type of talk is about; he would never even dream of opposing the Federal Reserve. Just like Obama lied to everyone, making them believe that if he got elected the wars would end, all their problems would be solved, their mortgages would get paid off, and their cars would magically fill themselves up with gas etc. etc...
Rick Perry is a duplicitous political hack through and through. Far from threatening "to secede" as Ya-ta alleges (which would have been a great moment, calling the criminal Feds on their bluff to put a blockade against Texas, as if it were some third world country like Iran or Libya to boss around), he was pressured to introduce the bill to stop the TSA Nazis from molesting people into the Texas legislature (since pretty well everyone is overwhelmingly opposed to the TSA's activities). Then when it was passed unanimously, he and his crony David Dewhurst had the whole thing scuttled behind the scenes in the Senate. These are the type of people they are: they say one thing to sound good to the public (talk the talk)), and do another behind the scenes. Nothing but empty rhetoric and dirty tricks.
Basically, anyone who votes for this guy is as naive (or just plain dumb) as anyone who voted for Obama. If Rick Perry ever gets elected, he'll be like GW Bush on steroids, and continue all the same ruinous policies as Obama (including giving more power to the Federal Reserve). Despite his new-found libertarian-esque rhetoric (totally empty), Perry has one of the most abysmal records of any politician I can think of. Actions matter, WORDS DON'T. |
Do you honestly think that Perry could be any worse that what we have now? this question may not pertain to you since you are here in Korea, but it may pertain to someone you know. I am speaking of the classic Reagan quote, "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" America is definately not, and it's time for a President Perry to bring back the America that the man-child took from us. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994
|
Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2011 6:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
Do you honestly think that Perry could be any worse that what we have now? this question may not pertain to you since you are here in Korea, but it may pertain to someone you know. I am speaking of the classic Reagan quote, "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" America is definately not, and it's time for a President Perry to bring back the America that the man-child took from us. |
Specifics, please.
And what is a 'man-child'? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2011 6:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
lithium wrote: |
Do you honestly think that Perry could be any worse that what we have now? this question may not pertain to you since you are here in Korea, but it may pertain to someone you know. I am speaking of the classic Reagan quote, "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" America is definately not, and it's time for a President Perry to bring back the America that the man-child took from us. |
I think he could be worse. I think it gets worse with each president we vote in from the corrupt two-party sham system we have. Bush was unbelievably terrible for our country, and Obama is arguably even worse. I would fully expect the globalist (Bilderberg attending, ex campaign manager of Al Gore) Perry to carry on the exact same agenda as his predecessor, and expand upon it. You are right that we need a leader to bring back America from the brink of total ruination the globalists have brought us to - but the corporatist, two-faced, globalist crony Perry is not the man for the job. I do not believe a single word of his rhetoric, not when I look at his track record in Texas.
The only person with a voting record to match his words is Ron Paul. He is the only honest politician in the running - the rest are complete and utter scoundrels on both sides. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2011 6:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
This has to be the first thread ever where I have agreed to pretty much everything visitorq has said. I think this sums up Rick Perry perfectly:
Quote: |
If Rick Perry ever gets elected, he'll be like GW Bush on steroids, and continue all the same ruinous policies as Obama (including giving more power to the Federal Reserve). Despite his new-found libertarian-esque rhetoric (totally empty), Perry has one of the most abysmal records of any politician I can think of. Actions matter, WORDS DON'T. |
Yes, he is MUCH WORSE than Bush. :shudder: |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994
|
Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2011 6:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
The only person with a voting record to match his words is Ron Paul. He is the only totally delusional--even more than Michelle Bachmann-- politician in the running |
There, I fixed it for you. You are welcome. I try to help when I can.
How anyone can think that isolationism, a la RP, is a valid policy after reading even a modicum of history is a mystery to me. Don't they actually read the words on the page? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2011 6:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
Quote: |
The only person with a voting record to match his words is Ron Paul. He is the only totally delusional--even more than Michelle Bachmann-- politician in the running |
There, I fixed it for you. You are welcome. I try to help when I can. |
So your idea of helping is to butcher peoples' words and blatantly misquote them? Thanks, but no thanks...
Quote: |
How anyone can think that isolationism, a la RP, is a valid policy after reading even a modicum of history is a mystery to me. Don't they actually read the words on the page? |
Isolationism is the most moral, rational, and effective foreign policy there is. Nothing could be more barbaric and destructive than an imperialist superpower interfering in the affairs of other sovereign nations, esp. where there is no threat to that nation itself (ie. the US). Even if it were well intentioned (which it literally never is in the case of the US, not even during the two world wars), it will nearly always have negative consequences. Waging a pre-emptive war of aggression (a la Libya) is never justifiable as a policy - and it's part of why it is defined as the most evil of all war crimes under the Geneva Convention.
Last edited by visitorq on Fri Aug 19, 2011 6:51 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2011 6:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
How anyone can think that isolationism, a la RP, is a valid policy after reading even a modicum of history is a mystery to me. Don't they actually read the words on the page? |
I have a hunch the libertarians on here will insist you're wrong in calling RP that.
Anyway, I do appreciate his passion about pulling back our presence overseas and the fact we wouldn't do anything foolish like invading another country if he were President. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2011 6:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
bucheon bum wrote: |
Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
How anyone can think that isolationism, a la RP, is a valid policy after reading even a modicum of history is a mystery to me. Don't they actually read the words on the page? |
I have a hunch the libertarians on here will insist you're wrong in calling RP that.
Anyway, I do appreciate his passion about pulling back our presence overseas and the fact we wouldn't do anything foolish like invading another country if he were President. |
I guess he is isolationist. I mean he opposes NAFTA, he opposes the WTO, he opposes all the wars, he opposes imperialism, and he opposes foreign aid. I don't think he's xenophobic, though.
His isolationism is refreshing, honestly. I think Ya-Ta is trying to say that if the United States pulls back its commitments, WWIII might erupt. Frankly, I kind of think that the United States is the actor most likely to cause WWIII. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994
|
Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2011 7:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Isolationism is the most moral, rational, and effective foreign policy there is.
Quote: |
Let me re-word that: Isolationism is the silliest, most immature, unrealistic, and idiotic foreign policy there is.
If one has read the history of the US, one knows that within a decade of the new government, we got ourselves involved in an undeclared naval war with France, then a real war with Britain...and so on. If one wants to look farther back in history, there was King William's War, Queen Anne's War, and King George's War before the French and Indian War. A country that relies on trade with the world inevitably gets involved in wars. We are a trading nation. Always have been.
Since 1918 we have been the preeminent world power. (Blame TR for that.) As a result, we have been sucked into various conflicts.
I agree with what I think bb is saying. It doesn't have to be a black or white situation. We don't have to jump in with both feet in every single situation. Just think of how we have engaged in Libya. But RP is naive at the very extreme end of what a rational person would consider as 'best'.
I think, without any nation state in any position to threaten us, that 5 or 6 aircraft carrier groups (instead of 11) would be more than enough to protect our shores.
I'm all for cutting back spending on 'defense' (read 'kill the dirty stinkin' foreigners') to a level that is commensurate with our position as the preeminent military power in the world. Maybe even a bit more.
We cannot responsibly relinquish our responsibilities as the major military power in the world. Isolationism is irresponsible. That does not mean I endorse running around intervening in every local squabble we can find. I think we intervene in Libya and stand aloof in Syria (militarily). |
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994
|
Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2011 7:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
His isolationism is refreshing, honestly. I think Ya-Ta is trying to say that if the United States pulls back its commitments, WWIII might erupt. Frankly, I kind of think that the United States is the actor most likely to cause WWIII. |
Yeah.
I do not think RP's isolationism is refreshing, but the rest of that is OK. We can and should pull back our commitments. My fear is that the Tea Party hysteria over debts will lead us (through their usual politics of fear) to screw up and fail to act when we should.
At this date (Aug. 19, '11) I agree that the US is the actor most likely to cause WWIII...in the form of Christianist end of the world idiocy. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2011 7:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
Let me re-word that: Isolationism is the silliest, most immature, unrealistic, and idiotic foreign policy there is. |
Is "I know you are but what am I" the best comeback you can come up with?
Quote: |
If one has read the history of the US, one knows that within a decade of the new government, we got ourselves involved in an undeclared naval war with France, then a real war with Britain...and so on. If one wants to look farther back in history, there was King William's War, Queen Anne's War, and King George's War before the French and Indian War. A country that relies on trade with the world inevitably gets involved in wars. We are a trading nation. Always have been. |
Getting involved in wars (ie. defending yourself from a clear and present threat) is not the same as intervening in other nations' conflicts. Obviously I am not so naive as to believe war will ever go away - there will always be disputes between nations. The point is that as a policy, isolationism is by far the most rational, since it limits the scale of conflicts (which are notoriously difficult, propaganda aside, to arbitrate, since both sides are often to blame). Leaving the two sides to duke it out amongst themselves is far better than intervening, which in turn provokes other nations to intervene, causing the conflict to escalate and widen in scale.
If the US is pulled into a war by an aggressor nation, like Britain back in the day, then war is not only justified, but essential to maintain our liberty. That is not a government's war, that is a peoples' war and conscription would not even be necessary. That has nothing to do with the federal government playing chess and sending our armed forces around the world (funded through taxation and inflation) to protect the interests of the elite.
Quote: |
Since 1918 we have been the preeminent world power. (Blame TR for that.) As a result, we have been sucked into various conflicts. |
Nonsense. We were not "sucked into" anything. In both world wars the public was generally uninterested in getting involved, but the government forced the issue. In fact we were dragged into the wars by our own government. Our involvement was not justified in any way whatsoever.
Quote: |
Just think of how we have engaged in Libya.  |
What do you mean "we"? You mean the illegal war that Obama declared without congressional approval at the behest of the UN??
Quote: |
I think, without any nation state in any position to threaten us, that 5 or 6 aircraft carrier groups (instead of 11) would be more than enough to protect our shores.
I'm all for cutting back spending on 'defense' (read 'kill the dirty stinkin' foreigners') to a level that is commensurate with our position as the preeminent military power in the world. Maybe even a bit more. |
You utter this in one breath, and then in the next...
Quote: |
We cannot responsibly relinquish our responsibilities as the major military power in the world. Isolationism is irresponsible. |
Hence the hypocrisy.
Quote: |
That does not mean I endorse running around intervening in every local squabble we can find. I think we intervene in Libya and stand aloof in Syria (militarily). |
If Obama intervenes in Syria, you will be ALL for it. I would bet real money on that if I could. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994
|
Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2011 8:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
Getting involved in wars (ie. defending yourself from a clear and present threat) is not the same as intervening in other nations' conflicts. |
As a corporatist, you seem to be saying that wars are icky unless they promote your profit. Is that right? |
|
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
|
|