|
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 |
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
 Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:36 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Meegook wrote: |
| If you can't explain the difference between a Ashkenazi Jew and a Separdic Jew, or why the United States entered WWI when it was virtually over and German offered very reasonalbe peace terms, you have no right to be calling anyone, especially someone that claims the King of Jews as his Savior, anti-semitic because you don't know the first thing about what your're talking about. |
Lol! What makes you think I don't know? I'm more concerned that you don't know what anti-semitism is. Here's a hint for you - it's not necessarily the same as racism.
And now I see roadrunner that you're changing the subject to WWI, but you still haven't backed up your claim that the Jews goaded Hitler to war. You're a disgusting anti-semite hanging about this board like a bad smell. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Nambucaveman
Joined: 03 Aug 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 7:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cbclark4 wrote: |
Too many personal attacks in here.
Just an observation.
cbc |
cbc,
I agree..again I'm warning people about staying on topic and flaming others. The thread is aboout impeachment, not Jewish people or attacking people because they dislike Jewish people. Let's stick to the topic of the thread.
NC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Meegook
Joined: 12 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Interesting situation has developed.
If Bush is impeached, Cheney will certainly fall too.
Pelosi's constituents, in the heavily liberal Democratic San Franciso Area, are demanding investigations into the Bush administration. We already have enough facts to impeach, so more investigations will no doubt uncover more wrong doing and impeachable offenses.
If Bush is forced out, Pelosi, as the Speaker of the House, becomes the President.
[And I want to make it clear, despite what some people keep insinuating, I don't dislike Jewish people. The King of Kings, whom I have given the destiny of my soul into his hands, is also the King of the Jews. I dislike some things some Jewish people are doing, but nothing wrong with or unusual about that, and we Americans, last time I checked, still have the right to free speech]. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 12:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
But you speak carelessly and imprecisely, thus insultingly. I see no reason to raise the issue of someone's faith or ethnicity on this thread for any reason whatsoever. Thus, doing so is pejorative.
My $0.02. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 12:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Meegook wrote: |
| we Americans, last time I checked, still have the right to free speech]. |
Very minor points here, but 1)you're not in America, and 2)the notion of 'free speech' doesn't apply on a commercial website.
| Dave Sperling wrote: |
| It should also be noted that this is a privately owned and operated site which is tied to an enterprise; Therefore posting here is a privilege rather than a constitutional 'right' to free speech and freedom of expression. To that end the administrator and his representatives reserve the prerogative to censor anything posted on these forums, and furthermore reserve the right to terminate a user account at any time without warning. |
Note that 'Sperling' happens to be a Jewish name, so you know that Dave is in on the conspiracy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 1:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
If Bush is impeached, Cheney will certainly fall too...
If Bush is forced out, Pelosi, as the Speaker of the House, becomes the President.
|
You are jumping the gun. Several of them, actually.
1. If Bush is impeached, it only means he must go before the Senate for trial and conviction before removal. (It requires 2/3s of the Senate for conviction and removal and has never happened in our history.)
2. At that point, Cheyney automatically becomes president.
3. If Cheyney is impeached and convicted first, Bush has the power to nominate a replacement. (The Senate then can confirm or reject.)
The only way to get Pelosi into the White House is to take out Bush and Cheyney with one bomb. Anything else, like impeaching and removing both Bush and Cheyney at the same time, would be seen as a naked power grab.
The other thing you are missing is that we only have two years before a new election. Do you really think there is time for two impeachment/trials in that short a time?
The Legislative Branch is in the hands of the opposition party. Not overwhelmingly so, but securely enough to block any more wild shenanigans and securely enough to roll back some of the worst abuses of the last 6 years. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 6:13 am Post subject: CIA acknowledges presidential order to detain, interrogate |
|
|
CIA acknowledges existence of presidential order authorizing it to detain, interrogate terror suspects overseas
| Quote: |
In response to an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit, the CIA has finally acknowledged the existence of a presidential order authorizing the agency to detain and interrogate terror suspects overseas.
"For more than two years, the CIA had refused to either deny or confirm the existence of the documents and had argued in court that doing so could jeopardize national security," the ACLU notes in a press release received by RAW STORY.
Along with a memorandum written by President Bush to the agency's director, the CIA also referred to a Justice Department legal analysis sent to the CIA's general counsel which specified interrogation methods which could be used against top Al-Qaeda members.
However, the CIA wouldn't release either of the documents.
"The documents are withheld in their entirety because there is no meaningful non-exempt information that can be reasonably segregated from the exempt information," said the CIA letter signed by Associate General Counsel John L. McPherson (which can be read in full at this pdf link).
"The CIA�s sudden reversal on these secret directives is yet more evidence that the Bush administration is misusing claims of national security to avoid public scrutiny," ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero stated in the press release. "Confusion about whether such a presidential order existed certainly led to the torture and abuse scandal that embarrassed America."
Romeros argues that "with a new Congress and renewed subpoena power, we now need to look up the chain of command."
The ACLU intends to keep pressing until both documents are released in full.
"If President Bush and the Justice Department authorized the CIA to torture its prisoners, the public has a right to know," ACLU attorney Jameel Jaffer stated... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 8:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
People chronically misuse verbs when discussing the CIA. This perpetuates the bitter "Rogue Elephant" image they love to parade so much in their allegations. In newspapers, on film, on this board.
I doubt CIA "was authorized" at all.
CIA "was directed," just as it has always been.
One word. A world of difference.
Anyone looking for rogue elephants in U.S. history would do best to hunt them where they actually live, which is not in Langley but rather Penn. Ave.
Just a clarification. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 9:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
As usual, your ivory tower sensibilities leave you grasping for straws. First of all, the hair splitting you engage in is meaningful only to the anal retentive. Second, even if anal retentive, one need not parse the meaning too delicately to understand what was stated. Third, given that before the order (and tell us, oh great wizard, why was the EO needed if they didn't need authorization?) was givenm, the Genenva Convention and Constitution were in full force. Thus, torture was NOT legally defensible THUS necessitating keeping any use of such tactics strictly in the realm of black ops.
So, take your ivory tower and stick it somewhere. It is not useful here. Once again you expound on hair-splittings that only you give a damn about because the rest of us can apply simple logic, so don't require a 2,000 page dictionary and 3,000 page thesaurus to understand, "One and one equals two." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| So, take your ivory tower and stick it somewhere. |
Looks like we've got Spiro Agnew posting from beyond the grave! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Quote: |
| So, take your ivory tower and stick it somewhere. |
Looks like we've got Spiro Agnew posting from beyond the grave! |
Indeed!
My simple "Ivory-Tower" point, by the way, was that we should not be taken in by the plausible-deniability machinery that has been in operation for decades, even if journalists, filmmakers, and the public at large have swallowed it whole.
Powerful forces are at work to do all they can to deflect attn from the Oval Office and shift all discussions onto the so-called fall guys. The journalist who wrote the above-posted story has internalized it so deeply that he (and thousands of others, I might add) casually uses verbs like "authorize." This is perhaps a small point to clarify. But it is far from trivial.
The Pentagon, CIA, all of these agencies, none of them can get up and tie their shoes without permission. If they do, then they're gone. Ask MacArthur. Ask William King Harvey. Ask Alexander Haig "Who's in charge?" for that matter.
Eisenhower directed the U-2 flight; JFK (and RFK) directed, in extreme detail, the Bay of Pigs and Mongoose; LBJ and McNamara, and not the Pentagon or the Military-Industrial Complex, directed the Vietnamese escalations; Nixon and Kissinger directed the Chilean intervention; Carter directed the Iranian rescue attempt, the early phases of the Afghanistan operation, and several Caribbean ops, by the way; Reagan directed Iran-Contra, from start to finish, believe it or not...the list goes on.
And W. Bush directed whatever it is exactly that U.S. military and paramilitary forces have been doing to terror suspects.
Let's not take our eye off the ball... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 12:25 pm Post subject: ... |
|
|
So, if Bush directed/ordered/approved of Gitmo and secret prisons, then he should stand to be impeached.
You're either impeachable or not. That's the morality on line here.
Whether it's strategic for a political party is, perhaps pragmatic for said party, but otherwise bunk.
And, in retrospect, maybe you've cited a whole list of impeachable offenses by most of the presidents in the past 50 years. That doesn't mitigate anything. It just means it's time to crack down. Maybe we should stop the buck here before it gets passed on and on.
The world would respect that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 12:37 pm Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
So, if Bush directed/ordered/approved of Gitmo and secret prisons, then he should stand to be impeached.
You're either impeachable or not. That's the morality on line here.
|
I agree with this, in principle. But, with only 2 years left before the prez election, I think maybe the Dems ought to focus on their new position and not jump the gun. You don't want to alienate legions of moderate republicans and such and throw away Obama and Clinton's chances at being the top dog. The Democrats should find themselves busy enough without an impeachment circus that would likely fail (2/3 of the Senate would likely not agree) and loose them the Presidency in 2 years. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 1:03 pm Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I agree with this, in principle. But, with only 2 years left before the prez election, I think maybe the Dems ought to focus on their new position and not jump the gun. You don't want to alienate legions of moderate republicans and such and throw away Obama and Clinton's chances at being the top dog. The Democrats should find themselves busy enough without an impeachment circus that would likely fail (2/3 of the Senate would likely not agree) and loose them the Presidency in 2 years. |
As a strategy for a political party, I totally agree with you.
Unfortunately, what that in turn means, quite explicitly, is that political parties are more important than the Constitution and justice.
It's akin to two mob lawyers agreeing not to file charges against each other.
As such, the parties are above the people.
That's a sad state of affairs.
But I disagree that a failed impeachment would lose them the '08 election.
It didn't lose te GOP 2000.
I believe it bolstered it. If there'd been no Clinton hanky-panky, I think Gore would've easily won.
Do you really think Clinton's impeachment attracted voters to the Dems?
Why would impeaching Bush attract people to the Rep's?
Blow job vs. Torture+++ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 3:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| And, in retrospect, maybe you've cited a whole list of impeachable offenses by most of the presidents in the past 50 years. |
Still caught up in the same U.S.-centric thinking that plagues the academy and nearly all discussions on U.S. foreign affairs, I see.
Do not feel too bad, Nowhere Man, vast numbers of the world's citizens are with you...
But Historian Sally Marks, in addition to all of the others I've previously cited on this issue, thinks your thinking on U.S. international relations is deeply flawed...
| Sally Marks wrote: |
| The difficulty is that, with few exceptions, this genre addresses itself almost exclusively to American policy formation and does so largely in vacuo...In short, American policy is never entirely free to establish itself without reference to external factors which invariably constrain it as much as or more than internal factors do. There is a world out there which often has not behaved as the United States thought it should, partly because its realities were not what American planners assumed them to be...If one studies American policy toward country A, one must seek reality not only in the United States but also at least in country A and perhaps elsewhere as well...the lack of a broader context sometimes leads to exaggeration of the American role, as in works which argue that American financial pressure impelled France toward Locarno when, in fact, the French had made their decision months before...When will historians question official premises [that is, that "American foreign policy is exclusively determined in and by the United States"] instead of echoing them? |
Sally Marks, "The World According to Washington," Diplomatic History 11 (1987): 265-282.
Also, I did not make a list of impeachable offenses for the last fifty years. Your mischaracterization is laughable. I merely pointed out that whenever CIA acted, it acted per instructions and unequivocal White House direction as a clarification to an article another poster referenced which showed signs of the mythical rogue elephant syndrome.
And if you want to start discussing event X in country Y, you had better make sure you have all of the facts first. And I doubt that you have the slightest idea.
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| The world would respect that. |
The usual righteousness that claims that the entire Eden-like, morally-righteous, law-abiding world is united against the U.S., the world's warmonger and greedy criminal. 
Last edited by Gopher on Wed Nov 15, 2006 6:52 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| 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
