|
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 |
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
 Posted: Sun Sep 04, 2011 1:32 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| weso1 wrote: |
| I stress real because the only answer I've seen you offer is to repeal the income tax. |
Considering it required a Constitutional Amendment to put it in place, and considering the fact that it would have significant impacts (for good or ill), repealing the income tax is a "real" issue and idea.
Personally I would be leery of 100% abolition and wouldn't give it a snowball's chance of happening politically, but sometimes desperate times breed desperate measures.
Remember the notion of an income tax WAS a "real" and "serious" issue before. It can be one again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 04, 2011 3:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| weso1 wrote: |
| Do you even understand what "straw man" means? Obviously not. |
Stop trolling and wasting peoples' time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
weso1
Joined: 26 Aug 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 04, 2011 5:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| Mix1 wrote: |
| But the idea that liberals/Democrats (they annoy me but on many levels they are slightly more sane) are "just as bad" is overblown. It relies on an argument of false equivalency. |
It's not false equivalency. They're all worthless talking head hacks, spewing out lies and propaganda, reading from teleprompters. They're all equally disingenuous (and they all get paid millions of dollars to lie to the public).
| Quote: |
| If you compare folks like Glenn Beck or Rush to folks like Keith Olberman or Rachel Maddow, there's clearly a big difference in terms of who is more intellectually balanced and emotionally stable, which in general is the latter side. |
Keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow are complete trash. They are caricatures of smug liberals that so many people love to hate (and rightly so). They are nothing more than sophists, worthy only of our utmost scorn and contempt.
They just seem "clever" to you because their entire made-up schtick is about using mockery to discredit their opponents and distract from actual debate. Nevermind facts, I can just make you look like a fool by cracking some smug, sarcastic jokes, and the audience will laugh and think I'm smarter than you.
As for Glenn Beck, he is a buffoon and a phony who presents himself as a pro-liberty, pro-constitution figure, but flip flops whenever an important issue presents itself (he was for the bailouts, and always attacks Ron Paul). Limbaugh is just the mouthpiece for the neo-Cons. Neither of them is in any way genuine or worth listening to - but at least they're not as vomit-inducing as Rachel Maddow...
| Quote: |
| And that's it in a nutshell: completely opposite worldviews viewing similar information in completely opposite ways (climate change, evolution, taxes, etc). It's kind of like telling a mentally disturbed person that everyone is not really out to get them, but they look around and still feel completely paranoid and panicked. There's not much convincing you can do no matter what you say. |
Well gee, it's nice to see you're impartial in all this.  Classic liberal debate strategy right here - first they position themselves up as impartial, enlightened observers to make themselves look credible, and without having proven anything they finish off with mockery and/or calling you mentally disturbed. That's how they think they win debates! |
^You see all that? Just ad hom attacks and name calling. No real substance at all. I wonder how you even take yourself seriously? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 04, 2011 6:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| weso1 wrote: |
| You see all that? Just ad hom attacks and name calling. No real substance at all. I wonder how you even take yourself seriously? |
I don't take myself all that seriously. Nor do I give a damn what you think of me, nor do I respect your lame attempts here at trolling/provocation (so obvious). I do, however, stand by everything I said in that post. In my opinion Keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow are trash. If you don't agree, I don't care.
Besides, what have you got to contribute? Nothing at all it would seem. Therefore you can just take a hike for all I care (you certainly have no business trying to lecture me about anything). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 05, 2011 12:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| johnnyenglishteacher2 wrote: |
(I've only spent 2 weeks of my life in the States, so please take this with a pinch of salt.)
It appears to me that there is a massive cultural divide in the USA which roughly follows geographical lines - NW, NE and Californian liberals against a mainly conservative South and Central. Both sides really seem to hate each other with quite a passion.
So why not just get a divorce and go your separate ways? Would there be any popular support for this in the USA? I know that no major political movements advocate this, but how would your average American feel? |
This is a temporary thing. We always argue, but eventually we arrive at a settlement (that lasts 50 years or so), then we start back in again.
Divorce, separate ways? That was tried in 1861 and led to the deaths of 600,000 people. Not an attractive solution, but may happen again. (I think it might.)
The first civil war had a regional basis that the next one won't have. If we do it again, it will be ideological without a regional component. The blood will be knee deep everywhere. Think Pompey the Great and Julius Caesar. Either way, you may want to brush up on your Chinese characters. |
Ya-Ta is pretty much correct.
Besides, separating over political differences is so tacky. What we should do is remove more of the responsibility to the state level. This is the traditional structure, and would address JET2's dilemma.
But why have two militaries for one Republic? Especially when we all share the same language and devotion to freedom? Separation would be idiotic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
johnnyenglishteacher2
Joined: 03 Dec 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 05, 2011 12:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| johnnyenglishteacher2 wrote: |
(I've only spent 2 weeks of my life in the States, so please take this with a pinch of salt.)
It appears to me that there is a massive cultural divide in the USA which roughly follows geographical lines - NW, NE and Californian liberals against a mainly conservative South and Central. Both sides really seem to hate each other with quite a passion.
So why not just get a divorce and go your separate ways? Would there be any popular support for this in the USA? I know that no major political movements advocate this, but how would your average American feel? |
This is a temporary thing. We always argue, but eventually we arrive at a settlement (that lasts 50 years or so), then we start back in again.
Divorce, separate ways? That was tried in 1861 and led to the deaths of 600,000 people. Not an attractive solution, but may happen again. (I think it might.)
The first civil war had a regional basis that the next one won't have. If we do it again, it will be ideological without a regional component. The blood will be knee deep everywhere. Think Pompey the Great and Julius Caesar. Either way, you may want to brush up on your Chinese characters. |
Ya-Ta is pretty much correct.
Besides, separating over political differences is so tacky. What we should do is remove more of the responsibility to the state level. This is the traditional structure, and would address JET2's dilemma.
But why have two militaries for one Republic? Especially when we all share the same language and devotion to freedom? Separation would be idiotic. |
To be honest I was thinking more about a Czechoslovakia-style separation than all-out civil war.
The separation bit wasn't a serious proposal, I was just wondering how much of this resentment is between different regions of the USA, and whether people really feel that it's still 1 nation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 05, 2011 4:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There are increasingly two kinds of political people in the US these days: those who revere the government as a god-like institution (whether on the left or right, it's people like ya-ta who wallow in adoration of tyranny, so long as it's dressed up in the right colors and they feel like they can be part of a winning team), and people who recognize the evils and the supreme danger of a central government holding undue power (as ours does today). I for one reserve my entire allegiance entirely to the constitution (in it's original spirit) and those who honestly serve it, and whenever I see so-called authority figures like Lincoln sitting on his throne of fasces, or Obama portrayed as Christ in contemporary leftist magazines, I would just as soon spit as even look at them.
If there is ever another war, it will be one of free people rebelling against the tyranny of the state (not unlike the first civil war). It would be an ugly affair (since we know the lengths of brutality the government will go to crush any serious threat - and no atrocity would be off the table, just as in Lincoln's time), but it would in fact be a just war if it came to that. If it can be avoided by any legal/constitutional means, and the tyrants maneuvered out of power through non-compliance and without any use of violence, then all the better. Of course it will be difficult on a federal level, since even if a Ron Paul figure gets elected they would just as soon kill him as let him do something like break up the CIA (which Kennedy started to do before they shot him dead in plain view) or abolish the Fed. Shifting power to the states is definitely a key point, as is general civil disobedience (just stop obeying the unconstitutional laws they keep trying to impose).
| Kuros wrote: |
| But why have two militaries for one Republic? Especially when we all share the same language and devotion to freedom? Separation would be idiotic. |
This would be true, except the people currently running our country have no devotion to freedom whatsoever. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NovaKart
Joined: 18 Nov 2009
Location: Iraq
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2011 12:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Privateer wrote: |
I believe one of the things wrong with America is that the talking heads in the media are committed to discussing unreal, irrelevant issues and to increasingly bizarre and wearisome debating techniques. This is not an accident, nor is it because, as many believe, that that is what the public wants.
The effect of a sick media is to confuse people, anger them, and get them enormously frustrated because they are not getting information, there are real and ever-more urgent problems, and there is never a full and frank discussion of solutions.
It's no accident that the media is the way it is. It's become the way it is in America by an evolution in response to constant pressure to conform to a certain outlook, pressure that comes not from the ratings as is commonly supposed, but both from the owners of the media itself and the corporate owners who advertise on it. That is, the market to which the media responds is not the public but the corporate advertisers, since they are the ones buying the audiences that are its product.
True, media talking heads come from the grassroots culture, but there is a filtering process that ensures only the right type of people get to the top. They have to know how to appeal to their audiences as well as conform to the demands of advertisers, but, within a relatively short period of time, the media, as a producer of culture, can change the expectations of audiences and, pretty soon, the culture itself. What doesn't change are the underlying reasons for the existence of the media in the first place, which are twofold: as a public forum for entertainment and as a public forum for the dissemination of information and debate. The latter has become almost a total farce, leaving our needs for information and real debate unmet.
So if Americans have become embittered and polarized these may be some of the reasons why: frustration with not getting solutions to real problems, frustration with the media, and reflection of the twisted, polarized, unreal debates in the media itself.
Why have Americans become so angry? There's a whole industry devoted to making them angry! |
I pretty much agree with this. The 24 hour news networks and talk radio seem to have given up objectivity and we now have political commentators who serve to radicalize the population to their extreme views which are used to generate ratings. It's a generalization but I think there's a lot of truth to it. I wouldn't necessarily say the things they're discussing are non-issues though, maybe sometimes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2011 6:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| NovaKart wrote: |
| Privateer wrote: |
I believe one of the things wrong with America is that the talking heads in the media are committed to discussing unreal, irrelevant issues and to increasingly bizarre and wearisome debating techniques. This is not an accident, nor is it because, as many believe, that that is what the public wants.
The effect of a sick media is to confuse people, anger them, and get them enormously frustrated because they are not getting information, there are real and ever-more urgent problems, and there is never a full and frank discussion of solutions.
It's no accident that the media is the way it is. It's become the way it is in America by an evolution in response to constant pressure to conform to a certain outlook, pressure that comes not from the ratings as is commonly supposed, but both from the owners of the media itself and the corporate owners who advertise on it. That is, the market to which the media responds is not the public but the corporate advertisers, since they are the ones buying the audiences that are its product.
True, media talking heads come from the grassroots culture, but there is a filtering process that ensures only the right type of people get to the top. They have to know how to appeal to their audiences as well as conform to the demands of advertisers, but, within a relatively short period of time, the media, as a producer of culture, can change the expectations of audiences and, pretty soon, the culture itself. What doesn't change are the underlying reasons for the existence of the media in the first place, which are twofold: as a public forum for entertainment and as a public forum for the dissemination of information and debate. The latter has become almost a total farce, leaving our needs for information and real debate unmet.
So if Americans have become embittered and polarized these may be some of the reasons why: frustration with not getting solutions to real problems, frustration with the media, and reflection of the twisted, polarized, unreal debates in the media itself.
Why have Americans become so angry? There's a whole industry devoted to making them angry! |
I pretty much agree with this. The 24 hour news networks and talk radio seem to have given up objectivity and we now have political commentators who serve to radicalize the population to their extreme views which are used to generate ratings. It's a generalization but I think there's a lot of truth to it. I wouldn't necessarily say the things they're discussing are non-issues though, maybe sometimes. |
In the 90s there used to be complaints that Americans didn't care about politics and were apathetic.
I'm sorry, but you can't have it both ways. You can't have widespread engagement in politics and also have consistently intelligent debate. If the networks were to get high-brow, they'd lose a lot of listeners who would drift to sports or legitimate entertainment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NovaKart
Joined: 18 Nov 2009
Location: Iraq
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2011 6:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| So are you saying you agree with what we said but that's the way it has to be? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2011 7:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| NovaKart wrote: |
| So are you saying you agree with what we said but that's the way it has to be? |
Pretty much. I'm not letting Fox News off the hook. Fox News' propaganda is hamfisted and particularly disgusting. But news-as-entertainment has become the new political reality, even with shows I enjoy, such as the Daily Show.
I appreciate the widespread political engagement. Its fun talking about politics, even if it gets a little nasty. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 07, 2011 1:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| johnnyenglishteacher2 wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| johnnyenglishteacher2 wrote: |
(I've only spent 2 weeks of my life in the States, so please take this with a pinch of salt.)
It appears to me that there is a massive cultural divide in the USA which roughly follows geographical lines - NW, NE and Californian liberals against a mainly conservative South and Central. Both sides really seem to hate each other with quite a passion.
So why not just get a divorce and go your separate ways? Would there be any popular support for this in the USA? I know that no major political movements advocate this, but how would your average American feel? |
This is a temporary thing. We always argue, but eventually we arrive at a settlement (that lasts 50 years or so), then we start back in again.
Divorce, separate ways? That was tried in 1861 and led to the deaths of 600,000 people. Not an attractive solution, but may happen again. (I think it might.)
The first civil war had a regional basis that the next one won't have. If we do it again, it will be ideological without a regional component. The blood will be knee deep everywhere. Think Pompey the Great and Julius Caesar. Either way, you may want to brush up on your Chinese characters. |
Ya-Ta is pretty much correct.
Besides, separating over political differences is so tacky. What we should do is remove more of the responsibility to the state level. This is the traditional structure, and would address JET2's dilemma.
But why have two militaries for one Republic? Especially when we all share the same language and devotion to freedom? Separation would be idiotic. |
To be honest I was thinking more about a Czechoslovakia-style separation than all-out civil war.
The separation bit wasn't a serious proposal, I was just wondering how much of this resentment is between different regions of the USA, and whether people really feel that it's still 1 nation. |
As far as I can tell, there isn't very much regional identity in the US, except for the South. I don't know how serious it is even there. The Tea Party has a certain amount of regional base there, but it doesn't seem to be identified with the South.
Most people I know have lived in two or three different states, especially when they were young. We move around a lot, not only for jobs, but just for a change of scenery and climate, a bit of adventure. I've never in my life met anyone who identifies more with their state than with the nation. Except for a handful of tiny flakey secessionist movements, until Gov. Perry (of Texas) brought it up recently, no one of substance ever brought up secession, and hadn't for a century and a half.
My fear with Kuros' solution to our present political division is that it has the dangerous potential of encouraging division, rather than the nation searching for a national solution. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 07, 2011 2:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| johnnyenglishteacher2 wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| johnnyenglishteacher2 wrote: |
(I've only spent 2 weeks of my life in the States, so please take this with a pinch of salt.)
It appears to me that there is a massive cultural divide in the USA which roughly follows geographical lines - NW, NE and Californian liberals against a mainly conservative South and Central. Both sides really seem to hate each other with quite a passion.
So why not just get a divorce and go your separate ways? Would there be any popular support for this in the USA? I know that no major political movements advocate this, but how would your average American feel? |
This is a temporary thing. We always argue, but eventually we arrive at a settlement (that lasts 50 years or so), then we start back in again.
Divorce, separate ways? That was tried in 1861 and led to the deaths of 600,000 people. Not an attractive solution, but may happen again. (I think it might.)
The first civil war had a regional basis that the next one won't have. If we do it again, it will be ideological without a regional component. The blood will be knee deep everywhere. Think Pompey the Great and Julius Caesar. Either way, you may want to brush up on your Chinese characters. |
Ya-Ta is pretty much correct.
Besides, separating over political differences is so tacky. What we should do is remove more of the responsibility to the state level. This is the traditional structure, and would address JET2's dilemma.
But why have two militaries for one Republic? Especially when we all share the same language and devotion to freedom? Separation would be idiotic. |
To be honest I was thinking more about a Czechoslovakia-style separation than all-out civil war.
The separation bit wasn't a serious proposal, I was just wondering how much of this resentment is between different regions of the USA, and whether people really feel that it's still 1 nation. |
As far as I can tell, there isn't very much regional identity in the US, except for the South. I don't know how serious it is even there. The Tea Party has a certain amount of regional base there, but it doesn't seem to be identified with the South.
Most people I know have lived in two or three different states, especially when they were young. We move around a lot, not only for jobs, but just for a change of scenery and climate, a bit of adventure. I've never in my life met anyone who identifies more with their state than with the nation. Except for a handful of tiny flakey secessionist movements, until Gov. Perry (of Texas) brought it up recently, no one of substance ever brought up secession, and hadn't for a century and a half.
My fear with Kuros' solution to our present political division is that it has the dangerous potential of encouraging division, rather than the nation searching for a national solution. |
How would Federalism encourage division? Be specific.
Federalism has furthered gay rights, socialized medicine, climate change initiatives and other environmental programs, etc. Federalism allows states like Massachusetts and Vermont to be more progressive than the gridlock in Washington allows. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Privateer
Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Location: Easy Street.
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 07, 2011 6:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| NovaKart wrote: |
I pretty much agree with this. The 24 hour news networks and talk radio seem to have given up objectivity and we now have political commentators who serve to radicalize the population to their extreme views which are used to generate ratings. It's a generalization but I think there's a lot of truth to it. I wouldn't necessarily say the things they're discussing are non-issues though, maybe sometimes. |
In the 90s there used to be complaints that Americans didn't care about politics and were apathetic.
I'm sorry, but you can't have it both ways. You can't have widespread engagement in politics and also have consistently intelligent debate. If the networks were to get high-brow, they'd lose a lot of listeners who would drift to sports or legitimate entertainment. |
I think you underestimate the number of people who are interested and the numbers of people who change the channel when political programs come on not through lack of interest but because they are disillusioned or fail to see any relevance to their own lives. Real political issues are matters of importance in our real lives, but to present them fairly would lead large numbers of people to become politically engaged causing real change. Hence they are not presented fairly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 07, 2011 8:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| johnnyenglishteacher2 wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| johnnyenglishteacher2 wrote: |
(I've only spent 2 weeks of my life in the States, so please take this with a pinch of salt.)
It appears to me that there is a massive cultural divide in the USA which roughly follows geographical lines - NW, NE and Californian liberals against a mainly conservative South and Central. Both sides really seem to hate each other with quite a passion.
So why not just get a divorce and go your separate ways? Would there be any popular support for this in the USA? I know that no major political movements advocate this, but how would your average American feel? |
This is a temporary thing. We always argue, but eventually we arrive at a settlement (that lasts 50 years or so), then we start back in again.
Divorce, separate ways? That was tried in 1861 and led to the deaths of 600,000 people. Not an attractive solution, but may happen again. (I think it might.)
The first civil war had a regional basis that the next one won't have. If we do it again, it will be ideological without a regional component. The blood will be knee deep everywhere. Think Pompey the Great and Julius Caesar. Either way, you may want to brush up on your Chinese characters. |
Ya-Ta is pretty much correct.
Besides, separating over political differences is so tacky. What we should do is remove more of the responsibility to the state level. This is the traditional structure, and would address JET2's dilemma.
But why have two militaries for one Republic? Especially when we all share the same language and devotion to freedom? Separation would be idiotic. |
To be honest I was thinking more about a Czechoslovakia-style separation than all-out civil war.
The separation bit wasn't a serious proposal, I was just wondering how much of this resentment is between different regions of the USA, and whether people really feel that it's still 1 nation. |
As far as I can tell, there isn't very much regional identity in the US, except for the South. I don't know how serious it is even there. The Tea Party has a certain amount of regional base there, but it doesn't seem to be identified with the South.
Most people I know have lived in two or three different states, especially when they were young. We move around a lot, not only for jobs, but just for a change of scenery and climate, a bit of adventure. I've never in my life met anyone who identifies more with their state than with the nation. Except for a handful of tiny flakey secessionist movements, until Gov. Perry (of Texas) brought it up recently, no one of substance ever brought up secession, and hadn't for a century and a half.
My fear with Kuros' solution to our present political division is that it has the dangerous potential of encouraging division, rather than the nation searching for a national solution. |
How would Federalism encourage division? Be specific.
Federalism has furthered gay rights, socialized medicine, climate change initiatives and other environmental programs, etc. Federalism allows states like Massachusetts and Vermont to be more progressive than the gridlock in Washington allows. |
Federalism is also used to pass laws against the 'threat of Sharia law'. It is also used to subvert Roe vs Wade. It is also used in the argument to let states opt out of Medicare, Social Security, etc. as a way (it is hoped) to make a shambles of national programs. It was used for decades to protect Jim Crow.
As you pointed out, federalism isn't entirely bad, but it is not at all entirely good either. There is a slippery slope between federalism and states rights. |
|
| 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
