|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Who are you voting for/would you vote for? |
| Obama |
|
43% |
[ 37 ] |
| Romney |
|
4% |
[ 4 ] |
| Huckabee |
|
2% |
[ 2 ] |
| Trump |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| Paul |
|
34% |
[ 29 ] |
| Other GOP Canbdidate |
|
2% |
[ 2 ] |
| Other Democrat Candidate |
|
3% |
[ 3 ] |
| Third party |
|
1% |
[ 1 ] |
| Other |
|
2% |
[ 2 ] |
| Not voting/don't want to vote |
|
5% |
[ 5 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 85 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2011 3:49 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Rick Perry sucks off creationism
| Quote: |
Perry regarded evolution as "a theory that's out there" and one that's "got some gas in it." He added that in the Lone Star State both creationism and evolution are taught to students in public schools. He explained, "I figure you're smart enough to figure out which one is right."
The Texas Tribune reports that some in Texas dispute the governor's claim about whether creationism is taught in the classroom in the state. The Tribune notes:
| Quote: |
| In 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that teaching creationism in public schools was unconstitutional. In the case Edwards v. Aguillard, the court ruled that teaching creationism in Louisiana public schools was the equivalent of teaching religion � and violated the Constitution because it advanced a particular religion. |
|
Perry is such an idiot. Thus, his campaign will go far. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ineverlie&I'malwaysri
Joined: 09 Aug 2011
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2011 6:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
^ Have you ever had sex with Rick Perry?
A Texas Ron Paul supporter runs a newspaper ad seeking women who have slept with the presidential candidate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2011 6:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Quote: |
The comment came during a question-and-answer session where one invited audience member asked Obama how he deals with his congressional critics in the GOP. �The Congress doesn�t seem to be a good partner. You said so yourself, they�re more interested in seeing you lose than [seeing] the country win,� the questioner lamented.
�Democracy is always a messy business in a big country like this,� Obama responded. �When you listen to what the federalists said about the anti-federalists � those guys were tough. Lincoln, they used to talk about him almost as bad as they talk about me." |
Obama: I have it tougher than Abe Lincoln
Lincoln was the greatest President this country has ever experienced, and possibly the greatest leader any nation or principality has seen in all of history. But he was hated. He was absolutely reviled.
President Obama is thin-skinned and egotistical.
Meanwhile, Obama is still trying to win the future. |
That's a pretty trashy article if you click on the link and read it.
I do agree that Lincoln had it worse. When he came to office we were only a few weeks from states firing on federal installations. Except for that, Obama is correct. He has had it worse than any other president.
I'm not a fan of Foner. The man couldn't write himself out of a junior high remedial English class. So, pffft! I've had a few dozen Korean students who can write better than he can...and I mean no disrespect to my students in saying that. They are upper intermediate to lower advanced. Foner claims to be a native speaker.
Bush II had some very bone-headed policies, but no one said, "It's because he is a white man." Check out what Coburn said about Obama today. Or the issue of the birth certificate.
So maybe Obama overstated the case; maybe Lincoln overstated his case. Could anyone have had it worse than Washington at Valley Forge?
And yes, Obama has had some victories and some defeats, some missteps and some mistakes, but he is in a situation that is similar to Washington and Lincoln...and maybe FDR. Congratulations to those who are making it harder.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2011 8:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Rick Perry's Seven Constitutional Edits
| Quote: |
1. Abolish lifetime tenure for federal judges by amending Article III, Section I of the Constitution.
2. Congress should have the power to override Supreme Court decisions with a two-thirds vote.
3. Scrap the federal income tax by repealing the Sixteenth Amendment.
4. End the direct election of senators by repealing the Seventeenth Amendment.
5. Require the federal government to balance its budget every year.
6. The federal Constitution should define marriage as between one man and one woman in all 50 states.
7. Abortion should be made illegal throughout the country. |
Some of the proposed amendments are bad. Others are downright terrible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2011 2:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
^
Bad to terrible...I would have to go along with that assessment.
About half of those are about locking party policies into the Constitution. That is not what the Constitution is for.
The man is not a conservative. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2011 2:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Someone asked Perry the difference between him and Bush. He replied, "Bush went to Yale. I went to Texas A & M". Some comedian (I forget which one) made an observation that went something like this: So the biggest difference is that you are dumber than Bush? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2011 6:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
Someone asked Perry the difference between him and Bush. He replied, "Bush went to Yale. I went to Texas A & M". Some comedian (I forget which one) made an observation that went something like this: So the biggest difference is that you are dumber than Bush? |
The only thing genuine about Perry is that (unlike Bush) he really is from Texas... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2011 8:26 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
Right, but, provided he says nothing downright retarded, he will be the nominee.
Obama will stop him like a bad check.
Disclaimer: Not even in it for Barack. I'd prefer to let the GOP have control of the entire shebang and truly demonstrate how it's out of their hands. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2011 9:12 am Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
Right, but, provided he says nothing downright retarded, he will be the nominee.
Obama will stop him like a bad check.
Disclaimer: Not even in it for Barack. I'd prefer to let the GOP have control of the entire shebang and truly demonstrate how it's out of their hands. |
2000-2006 wasn't enough for you huh? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2011 10:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Why the Press Loves Jon Huntsman but Ignores Ron Paul:The media is fascinated by protest candidates who critique their own parties, but it marginalizes those who attack the establishment
| Conor Friedersdorf wrote: |
Rather than obsess over the horse race 15 months before a presidential election, broadcast, Web and print journalists are self-consciously covering [the Huntsman] campaign for its substance, even speculating that doing so might have a positive effect on the national conversation. As much as I agree with Sullivan, Fallows, Weisberg, and all the other journalists praising Huntsman for challenging orthodoxies of thought in the GOP, however, I am struck by the very different standards that govern coverage of two other candidates, Ron Paul and Gary Johnson.
Neither Huntsman nor Johnson nor Paul is likely to win. All three are challenging orthodoxies of thought in their party. In doing so, all have an opportunity "to affect the political conversation for the better" and to "shine light on the evasions of his rivals, even if it fails to change the outcome of the race."
Here is the difference.
Huntsman is challenging orthodoxies of thought that afflict the GOP alone, and taking positions that reflect the conventional wisdom in the media: evolution is a fact, so is climate change, and the debt ceiling had to be raised. In contrast, Johnson and Paul are challenging orthodoxies of thought that are bi-partisan in nature and implicate much of the political and media establishment.
There is a strong case to be made that their libertarian voices are more vital. The debt ceiling was already raised. Embracing evolution has some political costs in a GOP primary, but matters very little when it comes to the vital policy questions that the next president is going to face. Huntsman nonetheless wins praise for those stances. For questioning America's aggressive, interventionist foreign policy and its failed War on Drugs, policies that are tremendously costly, consequential, and executed in ways that are immoral and demonstrably damaging to our civil liberties, Paul and Johnson aren't given points for speaking uncomfortable truths, shining light on evasions, or affecting the political conversation for the better.
They're ignored, and the excuse given is that they can't win.
. . .
But American discourse is never going to suffer for lack of arguments already advocated by one of the two political parties. If the press is really seeking to air the arguments of protest candidates to shed light on evasions and improve the political conversation, as Weisberg suggests, it should seek out serious critiques that the establishments of neither political party want to acknowledge. So long as it doesn't, no wonder guys like Paul and Johnson have no chance. |
Conor is absolutely right. This country has a long way to go. All of us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2011 3:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
Why the Press Loves Jon Huntsman but Ignores Ron Paul:The media is fascinated by protest candidates who critique their own parties, but it marginalizes those who attack the establishment
| Conor Friedersdorf wrote: |
Rather than obsess over the horse race 15 months before a presidential election, broadcast, Web and print journalists are self-consciously covering [the Huntsman] campaign for its substance, even speculating that doing so might have a positive effect on the national conversation. As much as I agree with Sullivan, Fallows, Weisberg, and all the other journalists praising Huntsman for challenging orthodoxies of thought in the GOP, however, I am struck by the very different standards that govern coverage of two other candidates, Ron Paul and Gary Johnson.
Neither Huntsman nor Johnson nor Paul is likely to win. All three are challenging orthodoxies of thought in their party. In doing so, all have an opportunity "to affect the political conversation for the better" and to "shine light on the evasions of his rivals, even if it fails to change the outcome of the race."
Here is the difference.
Huntsman is challenging orthodoxies of thought that afflict the GOP alone, and taking positions that reflect the conventional wisdom in the media: evolution is a fact, so is climate change, and the debt ceiling had to be raised. In contrast, Johnson and Paul are challenging orthodoxies of thought that are bi-partisan in nature and implicate much of the political and media establishment.
There is a strong case to be made that their libertarian voices are more vital. The debt ceiling was already raised. Embracing evolution has some political costs in a GOP primary, but matters very little when it comes to the vital policy questions that the next president is going to face. Huntsman nonetheless wins praise for those stances. For questioning America's aggressive, interventionist foreign policy and its failed War on Drugs, policies that are tremendously costly, consequential, and executed in ways that are immoral and demonstrably damaging to our civil liberties, Paul and Johnson aren't given points for speaking uncomfortable truths, shining light on evasions, or affecting the political conversation for the better.
They're ignored, and the excuse given is that they can't win.
. . .
But American discourse is never going to suffer for lack of arguments already advocated by one of the two political parties. If the press is really seeking to air the arguments of protest candidates to shed light on evasions and improve the political conversation, as Weisberg suggests, it should seek out serious critiques that the establishments of neither political party want to acknowledge. So long as it doesn't, no wonder guys like Paul and Johnson have no chance. |
Conor is absolutely right. This country has a long way to go. All of us. |
Paul sure does get a hell of a lot of press recently about how he gets no press. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ineverlie&I'malwaysri
Joined: 09 Aug 2011
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2011 6:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
Why the Press Loves Jon Huntsman but Ignores Ron Paul:The media is fascinated by protest candidates who critique their own parties, but it marginalizes those who attack the establishment
| Conor Friedersdorf wrote: |
Rather than obsess over the horse race 15 months before a presidential election, broadcast, Web and print journalists are self-consciously covering [the Huntsman] campaign for its substance, even speculating that doing so might have a positive effect on the national conversation. As much as I agree with Sullivan, Fallows, Weisberg, and all the other journalists praising Huntsman for challenging orthodoxies of thought in the GOP, however, I am struck by the very different standards that govern coverage of two other candidates, Ron Paul and Gary Johnson.
Neither Huntsman nor Johnson nor Paul is likely to win. All three are challenging orthodoxies of thought in their party. In doing so, all have an opportunity "to affect the political conversation for the better" and to "shine light on the evasions of his rivals, even if it fails to change the outcome of the race."
Here is the difference.
Huntsman is challenging orthodoxies of thought that afflict the GOP alone, and taking positions that reflect the conventional wisdom in the media: evolution is a fact, so is climate change, and the debt ceiling had to be raised. In contrast, Johnson and Paul are challenging orthodoxies of thought that are bi-partisan in nature and implicate much of the political and media establishment.
There is a strong case to be made that their libertarian voices are more vital. The debt ceiling was already raised. Embracing evolution has some political costs in a GOP primary, but matters very little when it comes to the vital policy questions that the next president is going to face. Huntsman nonetheless wins praise for those stances. For questioning America's aggressive, interventionist foreign policy and its failed War on Drugs, policies that are tremendously costly, consequential, and executed in ways that are immoral and demonstrably damaging to our civil liberties, Paul and Johnson aren't given points for speaking uncomfortable truths, shining light on evasions, or affecting the political conversation for the better.
They're ignored, and the excuse given is that they can't win.
. . .
But American discourse is never going to suffer for lack of arguments already advocated by one of the two political parties. If the press is really seeking to air the arguments of protest candidates to shed light on evasions and improve the political conversation, as Weisberg suggests, it should seek out serious critiques that the establishments of neither political party want to acknowledge. So long as it doesn't, no wonder guys like Paul and Johnson have no chance. |
Conor is absolutely right. This country has a long way to go. All of us. |
Paul sure does get a hell of a lot of press recently about how he gets no press. |
That's right. He gets more press about how the media ignore him than about his views. Always about the horse race, not the issues. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ineverlie&I'malwaysri
Joined: 09 Aug 2011
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 24, 2011 9:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Speaking of the horse race:
Rasmussen: Obama 39%, Paul 38%
Gallup: Obama 45%, Paul 44%
Has Ron Paul become electable?
Funny how he is doing better nationally than here on Dave's. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
weso1
Joined: 26 Aug 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 12:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
Rick Perry's Seven Constitutional Edits
| Quote: |
1. Abolish lifetime tenure for federal judges by amending Article III, Section I of the Constitution.
2. Congress should have the power to override Supreme Court decisions with a two-thirds vote.
3. Scrap the federal income tax by repealing the Sixteenth Amendment.
4. End the direct election of senators by repealing the Seventeenth Amendment.
5. Require the federal government to balance its budget every year.
6. The federal Constitution should define marriage as between one man and one woman in all 50 states.
7. Abortion should be made illegal throughout the country. |
Some of the proposed amendments are bad. Others are downright terrible. |
Man some of these are bad and not well thought out at all... but some are outright stupid. I mean seriously, only a dumb person would advocate 2 and 3. |
|
| 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
