|
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 |
Nowhere Man

Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
Posted: Wed May 25, 2011 4:28 pm Post subject: ... |
|
|
Preface
To start, I�d like to give you plus points for framing your question diplomatically (as in I didn�t know your position).
You then rack up minus points for your quick responses (as in, less than a day later, you be flyin� ur flag). You should�ve let this stuff stew a bit longer, then surprised us.
Your penalty for this is to answer this question: did you vote Bush in 2004?
If so, I�m not sure which part of voting Obama you can really call a mistake.
2008
To go back to 2008, I did, and still do, have a feeling that a very dark period in our country had passed. It�s obvious now (and was then absent of promises to �just wait� for WMD evidence and that �freeing Iraq oil would pay for the war�) that George Jr. was running the country in response to his father being called out as a �wimp�. He was begging for a war, knew that it wouldn�t hurt his constituent support, and got it. To say Obama is just the same ignores these factors.
I, for one, remember when some called it treachery/un-American to not support Iraq.
I remember when opposing the war wasn�t the �in-thing� to do.
I remember when protesters were run over by police motorcycles and war veterans were shot with rubber bullets for opposing the war.
I remember when high-schoolers were interrogated by federal officers for saying Bush should be shot.
I remember when, in post-9/11 rigamortis, the media was beholden to Bush�s every word.
Moreover, I remember when most of the world was behind us in condemning 9/11.
Furthermore, I remember thinking, as a partisan, that Bush would be a bumbling Republican who didn�t support my agenda but would have to stand election another four years later. IOW, I wasn�t sensitive to how much the 2000 election would impact our direction as a nation.
I did not anticipate a Department of Homeland Security nor the increased attack on civil liberties.
BUT
To say that Obama is just a continuation of this is ignoring the sheer amount of crap churned out in eight years of Bush.
Again, soup, rather than attack Obama, I�d be interested in knowing how much of the above you support.
NOW
This brings us to the �informed voter� argument.
If your only choice is two people, how informed do you really have to be?
There�s a clear answer: not much
Kudos to you if you�re based in Iowa or New Hampshire, but if the numbskulls in those two states don�t like your candidate, then you get to vote for the people those two states have selected. �Oh no no�, you might say, but if you�re after the Super Tuesday states, you�re pretty much down to four people AND you get to influence this if you�re a card-carrying party member.
SO, if you�re an �informed� Oregon voter, you get to vote for? Oh wait�in the event of a century�the 2008 vote went all the way! That�s awesome�for �informed� people who enjoy being chopped liver in a decision process.
This leads us to:
Voting Behavior
The State of the Union is as such: conservatives win the vote and go whole hog. Liberals win the vote and find out that half their base is �blue dog� (half GOP).
And 2000-2008 back up this in spades. Bush gets 9/11. His war goes unchallenged. In 2004, a pro-war candidate with loosey-goosey positions got chosen (by Iowa and New Hampshire) to oppose the �war president�.
Dean should have been the candidate, win or lose. Why? As a matter of substance. We could have had a referendum on the war instead of �yes� and �kind of�.
Which leads me to voting Obama
With war and economy on the forefront, I�m baffled as to why he focused on healthcare.
This is my biggest disappointment.
On the other hand, the true disappointment was the fact that his majority congress didn�t support him. Again, we have �yes� versus �kind of�. When the GOP is in power, we simply have �yes�.
2012
I�m not voting Obama in 2012.
BUT, it�s not exactly because of him.
The first reason is strategic: 2012-2016 will be a mass of flailure re: the economy. Pinning this economy to Obama is unfair. You could to Bush, but Uncle Ronnie is the godfather of indiscriminant deficit spending. The tools that attribute his arms race to the end of the cold war are best left with this debacle. You bankrupted Russia, no? Now who�s bankrupt?
Social security has to die. Hot potato, pass it round�
The second reason is that I�m done with the �liberal vote� being taken for granted and the effort being put into attracting conservatives. We had the White House and Congress, but�um...no, we didn�t. Why are there �Blue Dogs� and no �Red Dogs�? There�s a lot being taken for granted that needs to end.
On the responsibility for voting
In our version of democracy (republicanism, not to be confused with the party), you get a choice of two (as narrowed down for you by select states); you also get to vote as state and not individually (meaning your vote is only counted if your state agrees with you), and, the walloper, your house of representatives doesn�t get to expand based on population, meaning your representative is representing roughly 750,000 people and not 36,000 (as envisioned in 1776).
This brings us to the crux of the matter: how effectively do US national elections represent and reflect the principles which an �informed voter� should be able to expect?
The answer is: not much
You�re choosing from two, and, as well evidenced, the difference dwindles.
But is it your DUTY to vote?
No. You�re, in essence, voting for none of the above.
To ponder it, not voting in the �68 Nixon election trumps having voted for him, as well-informed as you might smugly feel.
In fact, if �pull-your-nose-and-vote� voting ended, we might actually have better options (if Iowa and NH residents like them).
Patriotic Duty
Finally, we must ask whether it is contemptible to not actually vote. In this area, we consult the great William Blake:
Like a bird to a nest,
So is contempt to the contemptible
It is entirely possible to be fully informed yet not vote. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
Posted: Wed May 25, 2011 4:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jvalmer wrote: |
| As a Canadian I'd say internationally Obama is a godsend to anything the Republicans can come up with. |
Because as a Canadian you are simply trying to impose your values on the US. As an American I in no way want to see the US become more like Canada...
| Quote: |
| With Bush, he drew a line in the sand and basically said if you're on the other side you're an enemy. |
Mere rhetoric.
| Quote: |
| The world isn't black and white, but filled with a lot of grey and just because you don't agree with the Americans on something doesn't make your country evil. |
Obama has expanded everything Bush implemented and then some.
| Quote: |
| And it absolutely boggles my mind why so many Americans are opposed to public health care. |
Because it's a complete and utter rip off. It's no better than theft. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Nowhere Man

Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
Posted: Wed May 25, 2011 5:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Because as a Canadian you are simply trying to impose your values on the US. As an American I in no way want to see the US become more like Canada... |
Yeah, they hate our 'freedom'.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| With Bush, he drew a line in the sand and basically said if you're on the other side you're an enemy. |
Mere rhetoric. |
They say the memory of a goldfish is roughly one minute.
| Quote: |
| Obama has expanded everything Bush implemented and then some. |
Your deeply impacted cranium can go back and process the extended post I just made showing how your case is really not as muppetly simple as you make it, but maybe you better just toss off one of your non-sequiturs.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| And it absolutely boggles my mind why so many Americans are opposed to public health care. |
Because it's a complete and utter rip off. It's no better than theft. |
visitorq,, when not curating the Lincoln Museum in Washington, DC, sells insurance. Assuming he teaches in Korea, he will be rife with examples of how national healthcare has robbed him.
Don't wait for him to support this... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
soupsandwich
Joined: 20 May 2011
|
Posted: Wed May 25, 2011 6:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fudge....I just was about to finish my response to your post and I lost my internet connection.................hate it when that happens.
OK......here we go.
| Quote: |
Preface
To start, I�d like to give you plus points for framing your question diplomatically (as in I didn�t know your position).
You then rack up minus points for your quick responses (as in, less than a day later, you be flyin� ur flag). You should�ve let this stuff stew a bit longer, then surprised us.
Your penalty for this is to answer this question: did you vote Bush in 2004?
If so, I�m not sure which part of voting Obama you can really call a mistake. |
I be flying my flag,eh? What flag do you see?
Look, if the timing of my posts is a sensative issue for you, than I can't help you. I'm sorry.
Yes, in 04 I did vote for Bush. He was the lesser of the two evils and the Dem's really had nobody better than Kerry. But, I enough the pros and cons of voting for Bush and I feel I made an objective decision....not by who I say on The Daily Show.
| Quote: |
2008
To go back to 2008, I did, and still do, have a feeling that a very dark period in our country had passed. It�s obvious now (and was then absent of promises to �just wait� for WMD evidence and that �freeing Iraq oil would pay for the war�) that George Jr. was running the country in response to his father being called out as a �wimp�. He was begging for a war, knew that it wouldn�t hurt his constituent support, and got it. To say Obama is just the same ignores these factors. |
Huh? A very dark period of time? C'mon you are cleary being overdramatic. A very dark time was the Great Depression (which, we are almost in now), slavery and the fight for Civil Rights.
Now if you want to get into WMD's.......I'll start out by giving you a few points on that. IF you want more later, let me know....
1) The intelligence communities of every major country were confident that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction before 2003. These include the United States, Canada, France, the United Nations, the United Kingdom, Germany, Spain, Australia, Japan, even Iran and a slew of others. It was a working assumption that such WMD was in Iraq, so much that I never heard accusations that it wasn�t true until the political war heated up in March, 2003.
2) Bill Clinton is the one who originally put the focus on Saddam Hussein�s WMD possession and links to terrorists. How come when he bombed Iraq in 1998 for four days, there wasn�t such a political outcry that he may be wrong about WMD?
3) As shown in the Kay interim report, there were thousands of items that Saddam had that could be used in WMD programs. These are usually dual-use items�items that have an apparently �civilian� use and are bought as such, but then when coupled with other items, can make WMD goods. If Saddam violated sanctions, as we know for a fact, why should we believe he had respect for other UN demands? And why would he violate such sanctions to gain such items?
4) As shown in the Kay interim report, why was such an enormous amount of material not declared as required by the UN?
| Quote: |
| I, for one, remember when some called it treachery/un-American to not support Iraq. |
Yes, I remember the "Un-American" thing. Treachery? I"m not sure you. You have to also remember that emotions were running very high at the time. Granted, it is not really and excuse but.....it is what it is.
| Quote: |
| I remember when opposing the war wasn�t the �in-thing� to do. |
Where you worreid about what the "in thing" was?
| Quote: |
| I remember when protesters were run over by police motorcycles and war veterans were shot with rubber bullets for opposing the war. |
I don't recall this...can you post a video of it? I'm sure something happened but I would be willing to bet it was an isolated inccident.
| Quote: |
| I remember when high-schoolers were interrogated by federal officers for saying Bush should be shot. |
"Interrogated" you say? Or, do you mean questioned....as they should be. After all, an open threat against the Commander in Chief is a Federal Offense.
| Quote: |
| I remember when, in post-9/11 rigamortis, the media was beholden to Bush�s every word. |
Sort of like the "Hope We can Believe In" mantra? Or the love affair the left/center progressive media has with Obama? Well, people look to their leaders for guidence and comfort...natural.
| Quote: |
| Moreover, I remember when most of the world was behind us in condemning 9/11. |
Much of the free world still is.
| Quote: |
| Furthermore, I remember thinking, as a partisan, that Bush would be a bumbling Republican who didn�t support my agenda but would have to stand election another four years later. IOW, I wasn�t sensitive to how much the 2000 election would impact our direction as a nation. |
Bumbling like Obama does with a speech? Yeah, I'll give you that. The 2000 election? Hey man, we are talking about the past two years.....
| Quote: |
I did not anticipate a Department of Homeland Security nor the increased attack on civil liberties. |
Were your civil liberties violated? What happened?
BUT
| Quote: |
| To say that Obama is just a continuation of this is ignoring the sheer amount of crap churned out in eight years of Bush. |
Wrong. To say that Obama is a continuation of this is simply proving the change you voted for well.............things have changed but not the way we all would want them. And in regards to eight years of Bush, hey......the economy was stronger, unemployment was lower. the dollar was stronger, gas was cheaper, finding a decent job (if you had an education) was a bit easier, ...........I can go on. But I'm not a Bush apologist either. But remember, we are talking about OBAMA and HIS TIME IN OFFICE...and what he stands for now and how it is stearing the country ina direction in wihch most don't approve of.
| Quote: |
| Again, soup, rather than attack Obama, I�d be interested in knowing how much of the above you support. |
I had not attacked Obama, or at least until this point. Sarcasitc a bit but not blindy attacking him out of emotion, not rational points.
| Quote: |
NOW
This brings us to the �informed voter� argument.
If your only choice is two people, how informed do you really have to be? |
That is up to you. Even if it comes down to voting for the lesser of two evils, if that is what you have, than you make the most of it. Granted, I wish we had a vote of "no confidence" option.
There�s a clear answer: not much
| Quote: |
| Kudos to you if you�re based in Iowa or New Hampshire, but if the numbskulls in those two states don�t like your candidate, then you get to vote for the people those two states have selected. �Oh no no�, you might say, but if you�re after the Super Tuesday states, you�re pretty much down to four people AND you get to influence this if you�re a card-carrying party member. |
OK...good point.
| Quote: |
| SO, if you�re an �informed� Oregon voter, you get to vote for? Oh wait�in the event of a century�the 2008 vote went all the way! That�s awesome�for �informed� people who enjoy being chopped liver in a decision process. |
I don't know...I'm not from Oregon. They vote mainly Democrat anyway.
| Quote: |
| And 2000-2008 back up this in spades. Bush gets 9/11. His war goes unchallenged. In 2004, a pro-war candidate with loosey-goosey positions got chosen (by Iowa and New Hampshire) to oppose the �war president�. |
Oh it went challenged....especially during certain politcal seasons.
| Quote: |
| Dean should have been the candidate, win or lose. Why? As a matter of substance. We could have had a referendum on the war instead of �yes� and �kind of�. |
OK...good thought.
| Quote: |
Which leads me to voting Obama
With war and economy on the forefront, I�m baffled as to why he focused on healthcare. |
It is used as a distraction point. Besides that bill had over 1000 pages. Did you read them? Well, who has? I didn't. But I lost confidence in the HCB when they took the public option out.
This is my biggest disappointment.
On the other hand, the true disappointment was the fact that his majority congress didn�t support him. Again, we have �yes� versus �kind of�. When the GOP is in power, we simply have �yes�.
...not exactly sure what you are getting at here. Can you clarify?
| Quote: |
2012
I�m not voting Obama in 2012.
BUT, it�s not exactly because of him.
The first reason is strategic: 2012-2016 will be a mass of flailure re: the economy. Pinning this economy to Obama is unfair. You could to Bush, but Uncle Ronnie is the godfather of indiscriminant deficit spending. The tools that attribute his arms race to the end of the cold war are best left with this debacle. You bankrupted Russia, no? Now who�s bankrupt? |
Yes, our government has been making bad decisions for many, many years now.
| Quote: |
| Social security has to die. Hot potato, pass it round� |
Inevitable.
| Quote: |
| The second reason is that I�m done with the �liberal vote� being taken for granted and the effort being put into attracting conservatives. We had the White House and Congress, but�um...no, we didn�t. Why are there �Blue Dogs� and no �Red Dogs�? There�s a lot being taken for granted that needs to end |
.
Do you know what seperates a Blue Dog Dem from a traditional Dem? Red Dogs are usually known as Moderate Conservatives......
| Quote: |
On the responsibility for voting
In our version of democracy (republicanism, not to be confused with the party), you get a choice of two (as narrowed down for you by select states); you also get to vote as state and not individually (meaning your vote is only counted if your state agrees with you), and, the walloper, your house of representatives doesn�t get to expand based on population, meaning your representative is representing roughly 750,000 people and not 36,000 (as envisioned in 1776). |
OK...I think Mr. Churhill can add some thoughts to that....
| Quote: |
| The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of misery |
...and....
| Quote: |
| The biggest argument against democracy is a five minute discussion with the average voter. |
....and.......one more......
[i]
| Quote: |
| Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time |
[/i
| Quote: |
| ]This brings us to the crux of the matter: how effectively do US national elections represent and reflect the principles which an �informed voter� should be able to expect? |
Well, since most people are not well informed and take the process of Democracy for granted, I would have to agree...to a point.
The answer is: not much
| Quote: |
You�re choosing from two, and, as well evidenced, the difference dwindles.
But is it your DUTY to vote?
No. You�re, in essence, voting for none of the above.
To ponder it, not voting in the �68 Nixon election trumps having voted for him, as well-informed as you might smugly feel.
In fact, if �pull-your-nose-and-vote� voting ended, we might actually have better options (if Iowa and NH residents like them).
Patriotic Duty
Finally, we must ask whether it is contemptible to not actually vote. In this area, we consult the great William Blake:
Like a bird to a nest,
So is contempt to the contemptible
It is entirely possible to be fully informed yet not vote. |
With that said, I say again...if we had the option for a "Vote of No Confidence".....that would make things interesting. But yes, the RIGHT to vote is wroth choosing between the best amongst the liars.
Good reply, man. Some good points.
soupsandwich |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Nowhere Man

Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
Posted: Thu May 26, 2011 3:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I be flying my flag,eh? What flag do you see? |
I see this:
| Quote: |
| Yes, in 04 I did vote for Bush |
and this:
| Quote: |
| And in regards to eight years of Bush, hey......the economy was stronger, unemployment was lower. the dollar was stronger, gas was cheaper, finding a decent job (if you had an education) was a bit easier, |
If, as you seem to imply, you carefully research the Dem and Rep candidate, then make an informed choice, I hate to take the wind out of your sails, but that's not terribly open-minded, as again you suggest it is.
The 2004 vote was a referendum on the war and the bush policies that accompanied it. But, to humor you, what did your research turn up?
The economy? The dollar? Gas?
Things were terrible.
Nice Churchill quotes: the UK has one rep per 70,000 people vs. 1 rep per 570,000 people in the US.
I'll pass on the rest for now, but depending on your interest level, I can elaborate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
soupsandwich
Joined: 20 May 2011
|
Posted: Thu May 26, 2011 4:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
If, as you seem to imply, you carefully research the Dem and Rep candidate, then make an informed choice, I hate to take the wind out of your sails, but that's not terribly open-minded, as again you suggest it is.
The 2004 vote was a referendum on the war and the bush policies that accompanied it. But, to humor you, what did your research turn up?
The economy? The dollar? Gas?
Things were terrible.
Nice Churchill quotes: the UK has one rep per 70,000 people vs. 1 rep per 570,000 people in the US.
I'll pass on the rest for now, but depending on your interest level, I can elaborate. |
Well, I look at both candidates. What do they offer? What have they done? What was their voting record? What principles do they stand for? I usually identify more with conservative principles
(smaller Federal government, protect life, more states rights, etc....actually you can find the differences between the two on this link....
http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/other/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs/.....though I will say I do support the right to die, on a case by case basis....no use in sufferering....I'm sure God understands)
........ so naturally I lean towards a Republican point of view. But I am not a Republican.
If the Democrats actually had a candidate in which I believed was the better, I'd probably cast my vote.......but in 04, all they could muster up was John Kerry. Besides, Kerry was such a flip flopper on issues, I really could not trust him.
I new the situation the U.S. was in back in 04....................so, what's it to you whether I voted for Bush or not?
soupsandwich |
|
| 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
|
|