|
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 |
wannago
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
|
 Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 7:03 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Wondering wrote: |
Who said anything about Americans CHOOSING him? Fact is, as president, the dimwit represents us.  |
Oh, for godsake, Americans CHOSE him...TWICE (here come the 2000 election conspiracy folks!). And that's all for him. Another idiot will take his place soon. Would you really want a King eeeeevil Bushie? Otoh, if Hilly get in, I'm sure she will insist that we call her Queen or You Highness. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ChimpumCallao
Joined: 17 May 2005
Location: your mom
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 7:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| ChimpumCallao wrote: |
Plus. WILL SMITH saves us from the aliens. Not the prez. |
The awe with which Americans regard the office of the President is quite astonishing. You've not been paying enough attention to your own popular culture. Perhaps because you are so used to it, it doesn't strike you as strange, they way it would an outsider peering in.
| Quote: |
But i still think that the thought that someone ruling through lineage and divine intervention is a bit silly- but I guess not any sillier than the rest of us, choosing those in power over who has the best haircut or didn't slip with Yee-Haw.
|
It's amusing to hear these kinds of comments from a people who still fawn in vomit inducing sycophancy over the Kennedys and their bloodline - and elected the mediocre son of a recent President for their latest leader. Lastly, whenever The Queen or someone like Princess Diana visits, you lot go potty. :D |
Deeeeeeeeeefensive. Notice the bold, how I drew parallels to all mass population's stupidy in fawning over those in power or the stupid ways in which the masses elect those who represent them.
Furthermore, "THE PEOPLE" did not make the previous statement. I DID. And I do not fawn over ANYONE in power- especially not the Kennedy's- i quite agree with you in your opinion of them.
Perhaps your defensivenes is a testament to how much more sensitive you are to your precious inbred royals? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 8:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You're cute Chimpum, and you do make me smile once in a while (genuine compliment).
And no, I can't imagine you fawning over anyone. But my point was not really about you, but Americans in general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Privateer
Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Location: Easy Street.
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 8:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
Yes, that's why when (if) it's passed over to Charlie, the monarchy may be in real danger. I think it's only that we've had such a good Queen that there's been no serious movement to have it dismantled.
However, as outmoded as monarchy may seem, when you look at the alternatives, are you going to get anything better? What system are you going to adopt? Are you going to retain the seperation of powers or are you going to make the PM the Head of State. Then, who will be head of the commonwealth? The 53 nations that comprise the commonwealth might not fancy an ordinary polititian to head their organisation. If we retain a seperate head of state, how will they be chosen. By the government? By big business (haha)? Or by the public? Knowing the public, they might vote some idiot like Beckham for the job!  Whatever happens, the chances are the person chosen will be some rich priviliged bugger in the pocket of big business. If we truly lived in a meritocracy it would be altogether another thing, but as it is, we still live in an imperfect world where priviledge comes to the fore.
And frankly, the Queen commands a respect and interest that others wouldn't. Can you name Germany's head of state? Can you name Italy's head of state? Vietnam's head of state? I bet most people from those 3 countries can easily recognise the Queen. I think she is a boon to our nation. |
I never thought I'd find myself thinking that way but I tend to agree with what you say.
On the other hand having a monarchy makes us look backward. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChimpumCallao
Joined: 17 May 2005
Location: your mom
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 9:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
You're cute Chimpum, and you do make me smile once in a while (genuine compliment).
And no, I can't imagine you fawning over anyone. But my point was not really about you, but Americans in general. |
Thank you.. (?)
But I don't think its just Americans. I think fawning over people in power is part of a human condition. I think there is a very instrinsic need to look up to someone or something-or to be in awe of people in power, just because they hold said power- I just find the whole thing very very strange. Isn't just WEIRD? To hold interest and affection towards people you don't even know? Im not immune to this, mind you, but its just WEIRD.
I *do* fawn BTW- i like kitties and if I ever met a member of the BSG cast I'd faint. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 1:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ChimpumCallao wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
You're cute Chimpum, and you do make me smile once in a while (genuine compliment).
And no, I can't imagine you fawning over anyone. But my point was not really about you, but Americans in general. |
Thank you.. (?) |
<chuckles> Yes, there's no catch. I may enjoy scrapping with you, but that doesn't mean I don't find you interesting and colourful. You often have an interesting take on a topic, and it's also good to have a few other women on this forum, to give it some variety and dilute all that bloody testosterone and masturbatury nonsense that goes on here....even if they insist on taking a polar opposite stance!  And you do make me chuckle from time to time.
That doesn't mean I'm going to stop arguing with you though. 
| Quote: |
But I don't think its just Americans. I think fawning over people in power is part of a human condition. I think there is a very instrinsic need to look up to someone or something-or to be in awe of people in power, just because they hold said power- I just find the whole thing very very strange. Isn't just WEIRD? To hold interest and affection towards people you don't even know? Im not immune to this, mind you, but its just WEIRD.
|
I think this is quite true. And yes, I agree it's weird. Perhaps it must have some evolutionary purpose that allowed us to function better in heirarchial societies? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jkelly80
Joined: 13 Jun 2007
Location: you boys like mexico?
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 10:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| wannago wrote: |
| Wondering wrote: |
| Who said anything about Americans CHOOSING him? Fact is, as president, the dimwit represents us. |
Oh, for godsake, Americans CHOSE him...TWICE (here come the 2000 election conspiracy folks!). And that's all for him. Another idiot will take his place soon. Would you really want a King eeeeevil Bushie? Otoh, if Hilly get in, I'm sure she will insist that we call her Queen or You Highness. |
There's nothing conspiratorial about politicians stealing elections. The Republicans and Democrats have been doing it since the 1870's. In 2000 the Republicans got away with it in Florida, just like the Dems did in Oregon. C'est la vie. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Privateer wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
Yes, that's why when (if) it's passed over to Charlie, the monarchy may be in real danger. I think it's only that we've had such a good Queen that there's been no serious movement to have it dismantled.
However, as outmoded as monarchy may seem, when you look at the alternatives, are you going to get anything better? What system are you going to adopt? Are you going to retain the seperation of powers or are you going to make the PM the Head of State. Then, who will be head of the commonwealth? The 53 nations that comprise the commonwealth might not fancy an ordinary polititian to head their organisation. If we retain a seperate head of state, how will they be chosen. By the government? By big business (haha)? Or by the public? Knowing the public, they might vote some idiot like Beckham for the job! Whatever happens, the chances are the person chosen will be some rich priviliged bugger in the pocket of big business. If we truly lived in a meritocracy it would be altogether another thing, but as it is, we still live in an imperfect world where priviledge comes to the fore.
And frankly, the Queen commands a respect and interest that others wouldn't. Can you name Germany's head of state? Can you name Italy's head of state? Vietnam's head of state? I bet most people from those 3 countries can easily recognise the Queen. I think she is a boon to our nation. |
I never thought I'd find myself thinking that way but I tend to agree with what you say.
On the other hand having a monarchy makes us look backward. |
I'm not sure I really agree with your last statement. In Japan-hating Korea I heard the Koreans say a lot of stuff about their beloved neighbours, but "They're so backward because they have an Emporer!" was never one of them. Rather some rued the fact that they'd lost their royal tradition. And I've never heard anyone in Europe sneer at the UK because of our monarch - and I've heard them sneer about a lot of things! . In fact there are 12 monarchies (if you include the Vatican City) currently existing in Europe which is one of the most advanced political entities in the world. And don't forget a few nations here and there discuss reinstating their monarchs the way Spain did in fairly recent times.
From time to time I hear Americans sneer at our insistence on keeping our royal family, but I don't take much heed. Remember the Americans are very proud of the fact they told George III to get f***ed and it's a big part of how they came into being as a nation. It's been a big part of their identity and nation building. They are proud of not having a monarch because of their early history. Nobody else gives a real toss about it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2007 12:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ChimpumCallao wrote: |
I don't know. Could just be backtracking. From the looks of it, it could very well be her leaving in a huff.
|
Can't help wondering this myself, actually. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2007 12:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Faking It boss: I made doctored Queen tape
| Quote: |
The TV production company boss at the heart of the row over faked footage of the Queen yesterday admitted he was personally responsible for making the fateful edit of her storming out of a photoshoot, and offered to quit.
Over a week after the incident came to light, Stephen Lambert, the highly respected producer behind Faking It, Wife Swap and other hit shows, has said that it was he who was responsible.
His company RDF has already issued an "unreserved" apology to the BBC. Last night RDF said it had gone public over the details of what happened because its share price had plummeted after a decision by the BBC and ITV to stop commissioning its programmes.
The RDF chief executive David Frank admitted the firm was "in crisis" and said its board rejected Mr Lambert's resignation as chief creative officer pending the results of an independent BBC inquiry, to be headed by former deputy director general Will Wyatt.
Mr Lambert, the public face of one of the handful of so-called "super-indies" that are looking to dominate the independent production sector, acknowledged the edit had been the worst mistake of his life and had created a "perfect storm". But he insisted the footage was never intended for use in the BBC trailer.
ITV yesterday followed the lead of the BBC in abandoning RDF programmes until the results of the BBC inquiry are known. Mr Frank said: "My position on this is that a serious error of judgment has occurred. We have owned up to it. I am totally satisfied that it is an isolated incident, and is not indicative of a deeper malaise in either RDF or the independent production sector."
But last night industry insiders asked how Mr Lambert, who spent 16 years at the BBC editing widely acclaimed programmes, could have made such an elementary error. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Geckoman
Joined: 07 Jun 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2007 3:16 am Post subject: Craig Ferguson's Monarch Bashing! |
|
|
I always enjoy watching UK comedian Craig Ferguson frequently mock and make fun and bash the British monarchy on his American TV show, "The Late Late Show." I watch him daily on AFN. It is every weekday at 12:30 am. The show is carried by the American broadcasting company CBS. Craig Ferguson is not afraid to frequently share his opinion that he hates the monarchy and that he despises them and that that is one of the reasons why he is currently in the process of becoming an American citizen. Within the Kingdom, he is from Scotland.
His American citizenship application is being processed at the moment and it is only a matter of short time that he becames an American.
See The Late Late Show's website at:
http://www.cbs.com/latenight/latelate/
Of all the late night stand-up comedy shows shown on AFN, he is by far the best and my favorite.
One very interesting thing about the monarchy that is too often over looked is the power of the monarchy to dimiss the democratically elected parliments of her colonies, or as they prefer to be called nowadays,
her "Commonwealth" countries.
The British monarchy has the power to do this and the current monarch, Her Royal Highness Queen Elizabeth II, has done it quite recently in fact.
In 1975 the Queen dimissed the democratically elected Australian Parliment.
To learn about this totally anti-democratic historical event see:
1) "Dimissed!" : http://www.oph.gov.au/dismissed/default.htm
"For many Australians the day of the dismissal is remembered as a moment of unique drama in their lives. To them, it shaped their political attitudes and changed their understanding of how the political system works in Australia."
2) Wikipedia's "Australian constitutional crisis of 1975" :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_constitutional_crisis_of_1975
This incident, which occured as recently as 1975, is a wake up call to
all Commonwealth countries and their respective British subjects.
The Queen has very real power to dimiss her Commonwealth countries' democratically elected governments. She can dismiss these democratically elected governments at her will, at any time, for any reason. You might think: "In this day and age she would never do that." But that's what they thought in 1975. And boy were they wrong!
The Queen's ability to dismiss a democratically elected parliment,
as she did with Australia's Parliment in 1975, is a demonstration of
just how powerful she really is. Our American president can't
even do that. Could George W. Bush, or any American president,
dismiss the democratically elected state legislature (ie. state congress)
of a state, say for example, California, if he wanted. Absolutely not!
But an additional tragedy here is that despite this action by a foreign
Queen, who was not elected by the Australians, dismissing the
democratically elected government that Australians had elected,
and proving that Australia is in fact not a "sovereign" country,
Australians did not push their country to become independent and/
or a republic. Sure Australians were outraged for a while,
but they cooled off, and settled to continue being a "colony" of England.
And that's just sad. It really is.
Not a single Commonwealth country was inspired enough by this
incident to seek independence and/or become a republic, despite the
fact that this incident proved that the Queen, whom they did not elect,
has great and very real power over their country's sovereignty,
and whom can undermine their country's democratically elected
government, and whom is willing to use this power in modern
and current times. And that's just so sad.
If your a Queen's subject from a Commonwealth country, particularly
if your from Australia, it would be nice to hear your opinion regarding
the Queen's great power over your democratically elected
government.
To play devil's advocate, though, one can argue that:
The people in these colonies are not quite ready for total self-government and they need a higher power to over rule them when they make a poor decision. After all, the Queen is a great and just lady, who works so very hard and sacrifices so very much for her subjects.
She only does what is best for her subjects and sometimes her subjects do not know what is good for them, and they elect bad leaders, and so to fix these so-called " crises" she over rules her subjects to correct their mistakes. For she is just a parent taking care of her children. Her subjects are her children and they are not yet mature and ready enough to be on their own.
God Save the Queen! Long Live the British Empire!
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2007 4:21 am Post subject: Re: Craig Ferguson's Monarch Bashing! |
|
|
| Geckoman wrote: |
| I always enjoy watching UK comedian Craig Ferguson frequently mock and make fun and bash the British monarchy on his American TV show, "The Late Late Show." I watch him daily on AFN. It is every weekday at 12:30 am. The show is carried by the American broadcasting company CBS. Craig Ferguson is not afraid to frequently share his opinion that he hates the monarchy and that he despises them and that that is one of the reasons why he is currently in the process of becoming an American citizen. Within the Kingdom, he is from Scotland. |
No normal person would leave Britain because of the Monarchy, no matter whether they supported it or not. It doesn't have enough effect on anyone's life for it to be an issue. That is just bollocks. He's becoming an American citizen for other reasons, but thinks that (invented) one will sound good on his show. Either that, or he's completely potty.
| Quote: |
One very interesting thing about the monarchy that is too often over looked is the power of the monarchy to dimiss the democratically elected parliments of her colonies, or as they prefer to be called nowadays,
her "Commonwealth" countries.
The British monarchy has the power to do this and the current monarch, Her Royal Highness Queen Elizabeth II, has done it quite recently in fact.
In 1975 the Queen dimissed the democratically elected Australian Parliment. |
Be careful here. What you've written is a little misleading. You make it sound as if the Queen herself chose to do it. In fact, the Govener-General, John Kerr, who was the acting head of state decided to do it off his own bat, using the reserve powers invested in him by the Monarchy. One could argue that (provided Australia had retained a seperation of powers) that could have taken place anyway, because the Head of State would simply have been using his own power, rather than calling on a higher power.
| Quote: |
If your a Queen's subject from a Commonwealth country, particularly
if your from Australia, it would be nice to hear your opinion regarding
the Queen's great power over your democratically elected
government.
|
Most Australians would prefer a republic. A few years ago, however, they were offered a referendum on this question. However, the Prime Minister (a monarchist) rigged the referendum in such as way as to dissuade the electorate from voting Yes to a republic. He did this by specifying that the Head of State would be chosen by the incumbant governments. The people rejected this.
| Quote: |
To play devil's advocate, though, one can argue that:
The people in these colonies are not quite ready for total self-government and they need a higher power to over rule them when they make a poor decision. After all, the Queen is a great and just lady, who works so very hard and sacrifices so very much for her subjects. |
That's silly. The Queen doesn't rule over any country, not even the one she lives in. Even in the UK she plays only a small political role, and outside of the UK the power of the Monarchy is almost never invoked.
| Quote: |
| She only does what is best for her subjects and sometimes her subjects do not know what is good for them, and they elect bad leaders, and so to fix these so-called " crises" she over rules her subjects to correct their mistakes. For she is just a parent taking care of her children. Her subjects are her children and they are not yet mature and ready enough to be on their own. |
LIke I've already pointed out, the Queen didn't decide to sack Whitlam. Kerr did. If Kerr had been the Head of State in his own right, instead of a proxy for the Queen, he would have done exactly the same. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
twg
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Location: Getting some fresh air...
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 12:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| It didn't seem like anything for people to lose their jobs over. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
|
| 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
