|
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 |
lithium
Joined: 18 Jun 2008
|
 Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 7:51 am Post subject: Anybody but O |
 |
|
| Unless you hate America, you will vote for anyone other than Obama. Four more years of him will change the country beyond repair. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jangleton
Joined: 25 Nov 2011
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 9:29 am Post subject: Re: Anybody but O |
|
|
| lithium wrote: |
| Unless you hate America, you will vote for anyone other than Obama. Four more years of him will change the country beyond repair. |
While I am considering other candidates for the upcoming election, and did help Obama get elected by voting for him, would you be kind enough to share with us , specifically, what Obama did wrong?
Please be specific and don't cite things he clearly inherited. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 2:07 pm Post subject: Re: Anybody but O |
|
|
| jangleton wrote: |
While I am considering other candidates for the upcoming election, and did help Obama get elected by voting for him, would you be kind enough to share with us , specifically, what Obama did wrong?
Please be specific and don't cite things he clearly inherited. |
Well, we can start with this speech which certainly sounded good to me at the time. I was excited about having a President who was concerned about the effect of corporate welfare and planned to use transparency to empower the American people.
But more damning to me personally was his continuation of the Patriot Act in its original form. He campaigned specifically against the violations of civil liberties in it as well as the secrecy involved, but has continued it without changing either issue. Arranging for the "indefinite detainment" of American citizens in the recent NDAA goes FAR beyond any violation of liberties which Bush attempted. This expansion of executive power is quietly supported by Democrats who will no doubt be revolted at the idea of a Republican President inheriting it. This might be a good time to mention Gitmo as well. And then there was the medical marijuana dispensary crackdown which Obama allowed and endorsed, contrary to his rhetoric on the campaign trail.
Finally, does it seem to you like Obama favors the financial interests? Do you wonder why he hasn't used the bully pulpit to shine light on individuals responsible for the financial crisis? Michael Moore explains why. And then there was the time he won the Nobel Peace Prize simply for saying he was against foreign interventionism and said that he intended to have U.S. troops out of Iraq by 2009. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
weso1
Joined: 26 Aug 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 11:23 pm Post subject: Re: Anybody but O |
|
|
| lithium wrote: |
| Unless you hate America, you will vote for anyone other than Obama. Four more years of him will change the country beyond repair. |
You are an idiot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
weso1
Joined: 26 Aug 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 11:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Well, we can start with this speech which certainly sounded good to me at the time. I was excited about having a President who was concerned about the effect of corporate welfare and planned to use transparency to empower the American people. |
Right, because letting the auto industry collapse, killing millions more jobs and letting the banks fall, destroying the economy beyond repair would have been so much better for everyone.
| Quote: |
| But more damning to me personally was his continuation of the Patriot Act in its original form. He campaigned specifically against the violations of civil liberties in it as well as the secrecy involved, but has continued it without changing either issue. Arranging for the "indefinite detainment" of American citizens in the recent NDAA goes FAR beyond any violation of liberties which Bush attempted. This expansion of executive power is quietly supported by Democrats who will no doubt be revolted at the idea of a Republican President inheriting it. |
Relax, you, me, and 99.9% of everyone else will never feel the affects of the NDAA detainment. It's for those Americans born here, have citizenship, and then spend the rest of their life in terrorist havens plotting against us all. Like the guy we drone attacked and killed a few weeks or months ago (I'm not looking up his name, frankly he doesn't deserve the effort.)
I'm not super happy about the patriot act either, but what's worse, letting the gunman continue to shoot hostages or just shoot the gunman in the head, forgoing any trial?
Besides, lets say he stood on principal and vetos the defense bill with the detainment provision in it........ "Obama hates the troops!" "Liberals are weak on defense because they hate America!" We'd be hearing that for years. I'd rather have it in the hands of a responsible Democratic president, than for the president to be defeated and the next Republican sign it in his first day in office.
If it's still in place by the time a Republican is elected (might not happen btw - the law staying in place I mean) then we'll raise hell about it. But hey, that's politics.
| Quote: |
| This might be a good time to mention Gitmo as well. |
He spent months, years even trying to work that out. But because of all the legal loopholes and the huge clusterfudge that it was when he got it handed to him, it's almost impossible to shut down. You can say he failed, but you can't say he didn't exhaust legal resources trying to close it down. So the options are: turn them lose in their homelands, with a new found hatred of America and all the reason in the world to do us harm, find another country to take them (actually tried that one, no one wants them), turn them lose on American soil (yeah, that's going to happen) or just keep them there until some other option comes up.
| Quote: |
| And then there was the medical marijuana dispensary crackdown which Obama allowed and endorsed, contrary to his rhetoric on the campaign trail. |
At. Gen. Holder kept hands off for the first few years on this. There's only been a crackdown recently because of the election. He can't come across as being "soft on drugs." Once he's reelected, it will probably go back to the way it was. Buying time till CA can legalize it and then it isn't his issue anymore.
| Quote: |
| Finally, does it seem to you like Obama favors the financial interests? Do you wonder why he hasn't used the bully pulpit to shine light on individuals responsible for the financial crisis |
? Financial transaction tax? Requiring banks to pay back plus interest? Having public oversight of auto industry restructuring? Guess you weren't paying attention to any of that, were you?
| Quote: |
| then there was the time he won the Nobel Peace Prize simply for saying he was against foreign interventionism and said that he intended to have U.S. troops out of Iraq by 2009 |
Oh yeah, I hated how he begged for that award to be laid at his feet. They through the award at him, how can you fault him for that?
And he did end Iraq. A bit later than expected, but that promise was kept. They were all home for Xmas. Ending a war is not as simple as it sounds, but at least he did it? Would you be happy with president McCain and his 100-year long Iraq occupation? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2012 1:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| weso1 wrote: |
Relax, you, me, and 99.9% of everyone else will never feel the affects of the NDAA detainment. It's for those Americans born here, have citizenship, and then spend the rest of their life in terrorist havens plotting against us all. Like the guy we drone attacked and killed a few weeks or months ago (I'm not looking up his name, frankly he doesn't deserve the effort.)
I'm not super happy about the patriot act either, but what's worse, letting the gunman continue to shoot hostages or just shoot the gunman in the head, forgoing any trial? |
George W. Bush called, he wants his argument for the Patriot Act back. You know, we used to shoot rampaging gunmen in the head without having to warrentless wiretap and GPS-track Americans. You know the entire point was to authorize its use against Americans on American soil, right?
| weso1 wrote: |
| If it's still in place by the time a Republican is elected (might not happen btw - the law staying in place I mean) then we'll raise hell about it. But hey, that's politics. |
So you're actually saying that the only reason you don't oppose the NDAA's indefinite detention of Americans is because the President is a Democrat. I'm not going to try to insult you here, but I would like you to take a good hard look at that view. Maybe consider how that type of thinking could effect our country if it were widespread.
| weso1 wrote: |
| At. Gen. Holder kept hands off for the first few years on this. There's only been a crackdown recently because of the election. He can't come across as being "soft on drugs." Once he's reelected, it will probably go back to the way it was. Buying time till CA can legalize it and then it isn't his issue anymore. |
I think you might be confused about State drug enforcement and Federal drug enforcement here. You see, California DID legalize medical marijuana dispensaries, so it SHOULDN'T be "his issue". Unfortunately, very powerful lobbies are determined to keep marijuana sales in the hands of illegal drug dealers, where it can be delegitimized as a contributor to border violence and hard drug use. Or maybe you're right and he thinks he can pull in California's social conservative vote...
| weso1 wrote: |
| Financial transaction tax? Requiring banks to pay back plus interest? Having public oversight of auto industry restructuring? Guess you weren't paying attention to any of that, were you? |
Jon Stewart presents: America's Next TARP Model. In case it wasn't obvious, the bank profits from the secret Fed Reserve bailout far exceeded interest repaid through TARP. You don't have to google far to see how much of that is ending up back in Obama's campaign fund... though the use of PACs will make tracking corporate money even harder in this election cycle.
| weso1 wrote: |
| And he did end Iraq. A bit later than expected, but that promise was kept. They were all home for Xmas. Ending a war is not as simple as it sounds, but at least he did it? Would you be happy with president McCain and his 100-year long Iraq occupation? |
Obama promised to do it in 2009. Bush promised to do it by the end of 2011. Neither keeping Bush's promises nor saying "at least it wasn't McCain" gains him any credibility here. Does anyone think that a Republican neocon would be handling Iran any differently? He recently signed sanctions which could destroy half of Iran's economy, making it likely that the country will lash out in response, which leads to another war and another search for WMDs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ineverlie&I'malwaysri
Joined: 09 Aug 2011
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2012 6:18 am Post subject: Re: Anybody but O |
|
|
| lithium wrote: |
| Unless you hate America, you will vote for anyone other than Obama. Four more years of him will change the country beyond repair. |
His signing the NDAA last week has already done that. How much worse can it get? I only know it will not get better with anybody in there - except Ron Paul. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2012 6:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Obama promised to do it in 2009. Bush promised to do it by the end of 2011. Neither keeping Bush's promises nor saying "at least it wasn't McCain" gains him any credibility here. Does anyone think that a Republican neocon would be handling Iran any differently? He recently signed sanctions which could destroy half of Iran's economy, making it likely that the country will lash out in response, which leads to another war and another search for WMDs. |
By the time Obama was elected, the agreement had been signed between Bush and the Iraqis to bring the US troops out at the end of '11. Rather than re-open talks about changing that, Obama chose not to push for an extension for the troops which is what the neocons were demanding and led to McCain saying Obama 'lost' Iraq. On this one, it sounds like you have swallowed the RP Kool Aid.
Would the neocons be handling Iran differently? Have you been reading anything other than RP text messages? The neocons have been calling for bombing Iran. Bombing Iran is very likely to lead to a war. Yes, there is a split on the right. Some of you want to bomb, bomb, bomb Iran and bring on Armaggedon and the rest of you want to bury your head in the sand and be isolationists. Booga, booga, booga: the UN is coming after you.
This is a major reason those of us who live in the reality-based community rather like having someone with a cool head, like Obama, in control of events at this delicate time, rather than hot-headed ideologues of the fringy right. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NohopeSeriously
Joined: 17 Jan 2011
Location: The Christian Right-Wing Educational Republic of Korea
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2012 6:37 am Post subject: Re: Anybody but O |
|
|
| lithium wrote: |
| Unless you hate America, you will vote for anyone other than Obama. Four more years of him will change the country beyond repair. |
Well, America is ruined beyond repair at this moment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2012 6:52 am Post subject: Re: Anybody but O |
|
|
| NohopeSeriously wrote: |
| lithium wrote: |
| Unless you hate America, you will vote for anyone other than Obama. Four more years of him will change the country beyond repair. |
Well, America is ruined beyond repair at this moment. |
Well, if the Left would give up its cocaine long enough to clear the mind and start exercising their Second Amendment rights while opening a few gulags for the neo-Confederates among us, things would improve remarkably quickly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NohopeSeriously
Joined: 17 Jan 2011
Location: The Christian Right-Wing Educational Republic of Korea
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2012 7:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Chris Hedges - Brace yourself. The American Empire is over .... "
I just ordered this book on Amazon.
"The liberal class was never the mean to function as the political left."
At the end of the day, the American Left and Right are merely Trotskyist factions of Marxist-Leninism. So why aren't Americans in general protesting against their Marxist government? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2012 7:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think I was a bit too flippant the other day when I said I thought Santorum was preferable to Paul because I would be able to predict just why Santorum was burning me at the stake.
I seem to have had the wrong form of execution in mind. It seem RP's friends prefer literal stoning. It's Biblical, you see, and fiscally responsible.
"Thus, Paul has been able to create one of the strangest coalitions in American political history, bringing together libertarian hipsters with those who want to subject the sexually impure to Taliban-style public stonings. (Stoning is Reconstructionists' preferred method of execution because it is both biblical and fiscally responsible, rocks being, in North's words, "cheap, plentiful, and convenient.") "I described it recently as people who are mixing the philosophies espoused in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged and John Calvin's Institutes of teh Christian Religion," says Deace. We're about to learn whether that can be a recipe for victory.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/01/02/ron-paul-s-christian-reconstructionist-roots.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
duke of new york
Joined: 23 Jan 2011
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2012 11:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
I think I was a bit too flippant the other day when I said I thought Santorum was preferable to Paul because I would be able to predict just why Santorum was burning me at the stake.
I seem to have had the wrong form of execution in mind. It seem RP's friends prefer literal stoning. It's Biblical, you see, and fiscally responsible.
"Thus, Paul has been able to create one of the strangest coalitions in American political history, bringing together libertarian hipsters with those who want to subject the sexually impure to Taliban-style public stonings. (Stoning is Reconstructionists' preferred method of execution because it is both biblical and fiscally responsible, rocks being, in North's words, "cheap, plentiful, and convenient.") "I described it recently as people who are mixing the philosophies espoused in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged and John Calvin's Institutes of teh Christian Religion," says Deace. We're about to learn whether that can be a recipe for victory.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/01/02/ron-paul-s-christian-reconstructionist-roots.html |
Everything you post about Paul on these boards is either about the racist newsletter or an obviously fallacious argument. Have you ever heard of a "guilt by association fallacy?" Attacking people who endorse Paul does not say anything about Paul himself. I don't know him personally, but I am quite confident that he does not want anyone to stone anyone else.
In other words, nobody cares what "Ron Paul's friends" say. They're not the ones running for president. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2012 2:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| weso1 wrote: |
| Relax, you, me, and 99.9% of everyone else will never feel the affects of the NDAA detainment. |
How the hell do you know? This is sheer ignorance and stupidity.
Yeah, relax, it's fine to give unlimited power to the government, because they would never do anything to harm us  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2012 4:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| weso1 wrote: |
| Quote: |
| But more damning to me personally was his continuation of the Patriot Act in its original form. He campaigned specifically against the violations of civil liberties in it as well as the secrecy involved, but has continued it without changing either issue. Arranging for the "indefinite detainment" of American citizens in the recent NDAA goes FAR beyond any violation of liberties which Bush attempted. This expansion of executive power is quietly supported by Democrats who will no doubt be revolted at the idea of a Republican President inheriting it. |
Relax, you, me, and 99.9% of everyone else will never feel the affects of the NDAA detainment. It's for those Americans born here, have citizenship, and then spend the rest of their life in terrorist havens plotting against us all. Like the guy we drone attacked and killed a few weeks or months ago (I'm not looking up his name, frankly he doesn't deserve the effort.) |
The Bill of Rights and Due Process, applicable to at least 99.9% of Americans!
I think Obama should run on that. |
|
| 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
