|
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 |
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
 Posted: Sat Apr 22, 2006 4:18 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
| I know about Canada's House of Commons, for example, and some of its authority, but I also know how Canadian Senate is selected, which is not exactly democratic. |
The Canadian Senate isn't elected at all. And, contrary to popular belief, it does in fact kill or try to kill legislation from time to time. The last successful time I can remember was when the Mulroney Tories had passed an abortion law, which neither side of the debate liked. "Pro-choice" and "pro-life" senators teamed up to kill the bill, despite its having been passed by the elected Commons. Since neither Muroney nor subsequent PMs had any interest interest in passing another bill, Canada to this day remains without any abortion law whatsoever.
I think pro-life was hoping that a future government would pass a more restrictive law, and pro-choice was hoping that no law would ever be passed. So far, I'd say pro-choice made the smarter bet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2006 10:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
In any case, I believe that, strictly and narrowly speaking, W. Bush is legally the president of the United States by election. It is polemic. But there it is. The Supreme Court, Al Gore, John Korry, and others, including Congress, recognize and do not dispute this, even if it is sometimes difficult to accept. And I do not believe that W. Bush is in control of the above-described system, nor has he usurped it.
Sometimes we, of whatever party, lose elections by a fraction of a percentage, sometimes we lose races by a tenth-of-a-second difference, sometimes we lose a blackjack game by hitting to 22, and while this can be frustrating, we have still lost these things in a black-and-white winner-loser analysis.
And at the heart of the problems we are seeing in the U.S. political system today is simply that many people do not lose well. |
You state this as fact, which it is not. There is a great deal of controversy over the last two elections and the degree to which they were stolen. I was in a bookstore in Seoul recently and saw at least two large volumes on the subject. One point I recall from perusing the jackets and a very quick skim of some content was that the Republicans seem to have mastered the art of the little election violation: lots of little ones to equal massive voter fraud/maniplation. But you're right: this is a non-issue and not important to the issue of whether or not we actually elect our leaders.
| Gopher wrote: |
| For me, incidentally, the hardest part about dealing with nonAmericans as an expat is that most tend to lack a sophisticated understanding of U.S. politics and rely on simplistic allegations and news editorials to inform themselves. |
Yes, because Americans are so very well-informed on the rest of the world. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2006 10:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BLT Trainer wrote: |
| Gopher wrote: |
| For me, incidentally, the hardest part about dealing with nonAmericans as an expat is that most tend to lack a sophisticated understanding of U.S. politics and rely on simplistic allegations and news editorials to inform themselves. |
Yes, because Americans are so very well-informed on the rest of the world. |
I wish I understood why it was that you hated America and Americans so. What drives you to post such bitter sarcasm? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2006 10:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't see how any measure of Bush's performance can be seen as less damaging to the United States than any other president. We've had some real idiots and/or incompetents in the WH before, but worse than Bush?
Wars: perhaps only the Spanish-American War had less reason to be engaged in. But the reason for Iraq? Regime change? Do we not have to ask ourselves whether it is ethcially right to force that on another nation? We reserve for ourselves that right to manage our own internal affairs. We, in fact, have made it explicitly clear that no meddling will be tolerated.
Yes, Saddam was a nasty fellow, but it is quite clear that the lives of Iraqis have deteriorated due to the war. The number of those that are dead and injured above and beyond what would was happening under Saddam are huge. And, has there ever been another war the US fought where so many people and nations were so against it? Is the ill-will being created not generating an antipathy for "America" that may stretch well beyond Bush's years?
The Great Man theory and its opposite both have a place in determining history. Why is it necessary to say it is one of the other? Of course individuals have shaped history, but some trends do occur regardless. economic cycles, in particular, are heavily cyclical. But does anyone there is no effect on them from current policies? Of course there is. The wrong choice at the wrong time exacerbates the length, breadth and depth of the cycles. So, is Dumbya having a deleterious effect on the US and the world at large? I would ask, as others have, in what way is he not?
Has his lack of leadership on Kyoto not in all likelihood made it more difficult to manage issues related to global warming?
Has he not gutted environmental controls in the US?
Has his leadership on Iraq not created a groundswell of anti-Americanism well beyond what existe prior to his presidency? Has it not potentially, even likely, pushed Muslim extremism to a point where it cannot be contained?
Has it not created a climate in which US intentions will always be in question; where we are feared much and respected little? If so, is this not going to affect policies and international relations for many years to come?
Did his leadership on Katrina not show us he cannot manage real-time events?
Has his spending on an ynnecessary war not driven the future economic health of this country to a point that will require a significant time to recover? And this as the Baby Boomer retirement issue swells to its massive finale?
Etc., etc.
Reagan was ill. What is Bush's excuse? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2006 10:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| BLT Trainer wrote: |
| Gopher wrote: |
| For me, incidentally, the hardest part about dealing with nonAmericans as an expat is that most tend to lack a sophisticated understanding of U.S. politics and rely on simplistic allegations and news editorials to inform themselves. |
Yes, because Americans are so very well-informed on the rest of the world. |
I wish I understood why it was that you hated America and Americans so. What drives you to post such bitter sarcasm? |
You're an idiot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bronski
Joined: 17 Apr 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2006 7:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| Gopher wrote: |
In any case, I believe that, strictly and narrowly speaking, W. Bush is legally the president of the United States by election. It is polemic. But there it is. The Supreme Court, Al Gore, John Korry, and others, including Congress, recognize and do not dispute this, even if it is sometimes difficult to accept. And I do not believe that W. Bush is in control of the above-described system, nor has he usurped it.
Sometimes we, of whatever party, lose elections by a fraction of a percentage, sometimes we lose races by a tenth-of-a-second difference, sometimes we lose a blackjack game by hitting to 22, and while this can be frustrating, we have still lost these things in a black-and-white winner-loser analysis.
And at the heart of the problems we are seeing in the U.S. political system today is simply that many people do not lose well. |
You state this as fact, which it is not. There is a great deal of controversy over the last two elections and the degree to which they were stolen. I was in a bookstore in Seoul recently and saw at least two large volumes on the subject. One point I recall from perusing the jackets and a very quick skim of some content was that the Republicans seem to have mastered the art of the little election violation: lots of little ones to equal massive voter fraud/maniplation. But you're right: this is a non-issue and not important to the issue of whether or not we actually elect our leaders.
|
Exactly.
Election irregularities in Ohio were never seriously investigated. Not all the provisional ballots and absentee ballots were counted. At many places in poor democratic districts people waited 5, 7...up to 9 hours, and people have to work, especially poor people. Kenneth Blackwell, Secretary of State and a Republican stooge (now running for Governor), never adequately addressed the complaints that there weren't enough voting machines in certain (read democratic) districts, and sadly he didn't have to do a thing. No one has the power to stop him. Maybe Bush would've won regardless of how the votes were counted or who was aloud to vote, but the Republicans didn't want to take that chance. Bullies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
|
| 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
