|
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 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
 Posted: Sat Aug 13, 2005 12:51 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Hey Joo: thanks for the recommendation. I think his writing style is balanced and informative. |
Talking about Spencer Ackerman of the New Republic. He is anti Bush , anti iraq war and anti anti - war movement. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 16, 2005 8:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| You HAVE stated your appreciation for the guy's ability to joke about himself. This is a fact. In the context it was offered, I would read it as an explanation as to why you think this particular joking is OK. |
Then you are reading too much into it, but this is expected, as you are trying too hard to split hairs with me and "expose" something that isn't there. |
Sorry, Gopher, but the record stands as it is here shown. You did actually claim that you admired his ability to laugh at himself. The actual fact is that the self he was laughing at is the self who led us into a war based on a "mistake" - and the record in his case shows that it was not so much a mistake asd a conscious and premeditated disinformation campaign. You might be the last guy who has not woken up to that - most of the Bush supporters have progressed from that point to saying, yeah, sure but it was worth lying to the the world ...
| Quote: |
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| Later, this becomes "the jokes his speech writers put together for him". Given that you entered this thread making apologies for the president's behavior, I think it's a fair assumption that you brought up speech writers to lay the blame for what happened somewhere other than on Bush. Why else would you bring up speech writers? |
There you go again. This mischaracterizes me. |
I'm actually very interested in your explanation of why this is a mischaracterization. I also noticed that you first liked his ability to joke about himself (and at the same time, the deaths of a lot of people) and then later shifted it to his jokewriters.
Seriously. I'm interested in how you reconcile these things.
| Quote: |
In any case, these jokes were spoken in bad taste, because, as you point out, when you connect A to B, it and the full context becomes clear, it is not funny. But they were not connecting A to B at that dinner.
Context is at least as important as content. |
Context is always available to any human being who has the ability to pull the tiny muscles that allow our eyes to open. At least 600 Americans were already dead at the time of this speech. That IS the context.
| Quote: |
| Bush is not necessarily in his right mind. |
You have now said more, much more, than either Nowhere Man nor myself or anyone else has ever said while attacking our American President - I think I can state with confidence that I myself have never called him crazy. Stupid, deluded, borderline-evil, sure all that, but not crazy
| Quote: |
| But I seriously doubt (personal belief) that even he would have told this joke had he put any thought into it first. |
I saw the video and so did you. It was more than just a joke told off-the-cuff at a large gathering. I involved him sitting in his desk in the Oval Office, looking through all the drawers and saying. "Damn, where are those WMDs," or something similar ... NOW who is mischaracterizing?
| Quote: |
| I am a former Marine rifleman, and those are my brothers who are over there now, so please do not put words into my mouth about what I think about the troops who've died in Iraq. |
I begin to understand the source of your vehemence, but I am highly confused that you will continue to assert that what you say stems from "objectivity," and while I respect your allegience to comrades in arms - the finest kind of human loyalty, I truly to believe it and respect it with every fiber - I simply cannot understand all the things you have said here recently about objectivity.
I simply do not understand it at all.
It's okay to have an opinion. It's okay to have a point of view. It's okay to speak from the heart. Such things grant you humanity, they do not detract from it - they GIVE you credibility, they do not take it away.
| Quote: |
| There you go again, yet again. |
Oh, and we've all been quite amused by your repeated references to Ronald Reagan in the debates against Walter Mondale while trying to portray yourself as some kind of middle-of-the-road centrist ... or something. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 16, 2005 8:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Bobster wrote: |
| Seriously. I'm interested in how you reconcile these things...I simply do not understand it at all. |
I think this is the end of it, really, I mean I understand your points, I know where they're coming from, and I know what you mean to say. But you can't get out of that box and see my point. And I'm tired of trying to explain it to people who are entirely unwilling to listen, or listen only long enough to find something to object to or split hairs over. I've admitted before on this board that nothing that I write is bulletproof, so if you're committed to finding holes in what I (or anyone else) might write, then have your day.
| The Bobster wrote: |
| ...trying to portray yourself as some kind of middle-of-the-road centrist ... or something. |
This is the kind of ridicule that has made this a useless exchange of views, by the way. You're going to continue watching videos like that and nodding your heads on cue no matter what I or anyone else say about it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 16, 2005 9:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| The Bobster wrote: |
| Seriously. I'm interested in how you reconcile these things...I simply do not understand it at all. |
I think this is the end of it, really, I mean I understand your points, I know where they're coming from, and I know what you mean to say. But you can't get out of that box and see my point. And I'm tired of trying to explain it to people who are entirely unwilling to listen, or listen only long enough to find something to object to. |
I don't "mean to say" anything other than what I actually say, and I repeat that I am VERY interested in seeing you try to reconcile the large gap between, on the one hand, saying that you admire Bush for being able to laugh at himself - a quality I admire in other humans and seek to attain for myself, let me add - and on the other hand trying (as you seemed most definitely to do) to ascribe this whole thing to some faceless speechwriter in an office somewhere, when the video clearly shows him enacting the joke by looking all around his office for those pesky WMDs ... damn, where ARE they, anyway?
I've been very impressed with you in the short time you've been here, Gopher, and you have made me learn a few things. This most recent thing is something I have yet to understand, so help me out if you have a spare moment or two.
| Quote: |
| The Bobster wrote: |
| ...trying to portray yourself as some kind of middle-of-the-road centrist ... or something. |
This is the kind of ridicule that has made this a useless exchange of views, by the way. |
It never occurred to me for a moment that the reference to Ronald Reagan's catchphrase ("There he goes again") was anything less than intentional on your part ... you have on many occasions cited your qualifications as a historian, so I naturally assumed that even if you were not yet breathing during that time in our nation's life then you would have understood, and intended, what you were saying.
Did you really think I was ridiculing you? If I am ridiculous - I've been guilty of it often enough - it's not hard to show it. The reference seemed very clear to me, and it was repeated by you more than once, and therefore I assumed it was exactly what you wanted people to hear.
You and I do not agrere, but that does not make our exchange of views worthless - I will argue the contrary, that as long as we can remain civil and speak with honesty and intelligence, then the the exchange is extremely worthwhile, as there is the potential for each of us to gain to gain from it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 16, 2005 4:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Doing things the Michael Moore way means another victory for the republicans in 2008.
I do think it is quite interesting that Michael Moore types and the even more radical counterpunch types have complete faith in their way of doing things and the absolute truth of their views. These people are full of themselves They are so convinced that are just so brilliant and the 85% -90% of people who don't subscribe to their views (that would include mainstream liberals) are just not as steller as they are .
Since I am not in the business of advising the other side please forget what I just said.
Anyway the video was a cheap shot.
Bush wasn't laughing about the dead soldiers.
The clip presents the president going to war for no reason at all. That is not so at all. The reason for the war wasn't WMD's though the adminstration thought Saddam had them. But Bush also presented the reason for the war as a national security issue and that is why the US did go to war.If the US had gone to war about WMDs that would have been a national security issue. And the real reason for the war was because of national security. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 16, 2005 7:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
OK Bobster, I think you're sincere, and on the assumption that the ridicule will stop (on all sides) and we can have an intelligent discussion, I will attempt to explain my perspective on Bush and this video one more time (perhaps we can speak clearer if we just talk and leave the kid's stuff behind...).
One step at a time, though, OK?
Can we agree that all of the below are possible and respectable:
(a) You can adore someone and agree with some, all, or nothing of what they stand for;
(b) You can merely like someone and agree with some, all, or nothing of what they stand for;
(c) You can have neutral or disinterested feelings about someone and agree with some, all, or nothing of what they stand for;
(d) You can dislike someone and agree with some, all, or nothing or what they stand for;
(e) You can burn with outright hatred for someone and agree with some, all, or nothing of what they stand for; and
(f) There must be a great many variants and unique combinations of these possibilities, because our world is complex and filled with contradictions and ironies.
Can we agree, then, that it's possible for me to disagree with most or all of what Bush stands for but at the same time I don't have any particular negative feelings towards him, particularly on a personal level, and indeed, he has some personal qualities that I can admire?
Conversely, is it also possible that I can admire many things about Clinton, including his personality, agree with the vast majority of his politics, but at the same time want to distance myself from a few of his positions, and also find some personal characterisics troubling?
And, as another example (from the other thread that drew fire), that I can find Diamond's book a first-rate book, a cutting-edge synthesis of a wide range of data from diverse disciplines bearing on a single issue, well worth reading and rereading, but, at the same time, I question what I see as a minor flaw in that it makes more of a political statement than represents straightforward scholarly inquiry?
Can we agree that these things are within the realm of the possible and not a cover for some secret motive on my part? If you can agree with me here (that these things are all possible and respectable, although you may have other positions), then I'll move on. I'll wait for you to agree or state your objections before continuing... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2005 11:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| The clip presents the president going to war for no reason at all. That is not so at all. The reason for the war wasn't WMD's though the adminstration thought Saddam had them. But Bush also presented the reason for the war as a national security issue and that is why the US did go to war.If the US had gone to war about WMDs that would have been a national security issue. And the real reason for the war was because of national security. |
It's a nice story, but Bush won the last election by claiming the nation is not secure. Hard to say he's the guy for the job, after that. that is what the electorate said, thi ...
The lesson is, make people afraid and they will follow you. Even if you were the guy who was supposed to make them safe. Make the claimand if you can make them feel it, and that's all it takes ... apparently.
Gopher said
| Quote: |
| You can adore someone and agree with some, all, or nothing of what they stand for; |
I can stand by that, since I've been having a similar argument about Cindy Sheehan.
I was looking hard for something in what you said earlier that would account for your admiration of Dubwa being able ot laugh at himself - without of course disprespecthing the hundred of American volunteers who had died at that meoment - and your later assetrtion that the blame goes on the speechwriters. It's a dichomoty, and it still needs to be explained.
| Quote: |
| Can we agree, then, that it's possible for me to disagree with most or all of what Bush stands for but at the same time I don't have any particular negative feelings towards him, particularly on a personal level, and indeed, he has some personal qualities that I can admire? |
We might agree, except for one thing. The world is in a very precarious place at the moment. There could be more 9/11 atrocities, or less, or none at all. There could be more countries invaded on false pretexts as Iraq was, or fewer, or none at all. There could be more innocent guys gunned down in the subway like that Braxilian fellow was a short time ago. or there could be fewer, or none at all.
As human beings who believe and work toward what is good, we can make a choice about how things can be. If we detach ourselves and try to be "objective," nothing good will happen and evil will flourish.
Small potatoes, maybe, but it's the only meager objection I can come up with ... and yeah, I'm being ironic, and I don't see any of it as meager at all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2005 11:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
And, as another example (from the other thread that drew fire), that I can find Diamond's book a first-rate book, a cutting-edge synthesis of a wide range of data from diverse disciplines bearing on a single issue, well worth reading and rereading, but, at the same time, I question what I see as a minor flaw in that it makes more of a political statement than represents straightforward scholarly inquiry?
Can we agree that these things are within the realm of the possible and not a cover for some secret motive on my part? |
Good post.
I wish you had put your Diamond comments in that light in that other thread; At the time it seemed like you were using 1 or 2 minor points to discredit the whole book not to mention a whole school of political philosophy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2005 4:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
It's a nice story, but Bush won the last election by claiming the nation is not secure. Hard to say he's the guy for the job, after that. that is what the electorate said, thi ...
The lesson is, make people afraid and they will follow you. Even if you were the guy who was supposed to make them safe. Make the claimand if you can make them feel it, and that's all it takes ... apparently. |
Yes well then the left should have made a better case. You see if they had come up with good alteratives then Bush would not have won. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2005 6:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bulsajo wrote: |
| Gopher wrote: |
And, as another example (from the other thread that drew fire), that I can find Diamond's book a first-rate book, a cutting-edge synthesis of a wide range of data from diverse disciplines bearing on a single issue, well worth reading and rereading, but, at the same time, I question what I see as a minor flaw in that it makes more of a political statement than represents straightforward scholarly inquiry?
Can we agree that these things are within the realm of the possible and not a cover for some secret motive on my part? |
Good post.
I wish you had put your Diamond comments in that light in that other thread; At the time it seemed like you were using 1 or 2 minor points to discredit the whole book not to mention a whole school of political philosophy. |
People must have assumed that that was my intention because it seems to be an American tradition in book reviews (and debate): if there's one error, one wrong citation, a slant to be identified, then the whole thing must be rejected, or so it goes...
I don't agree with that. So it's all right to identify a slant or a point of view (or an agenda) but it doesn't necessarily descredit the book or stand against the philosophy (or take on the agenda). (There are parts of Diamond where the slant isn't even detectable, by the way.) People who need simplistic answers make debates and exchanges of views complicated or impossibile. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 28, 2005 9:01 pm Post subject: ... |
|
|
Sorry, I was on vacation.
| Quote: |
I dare you to sincerely repeat my opinion on this video without twisting or mischaracterizing it. Just state the basic position without ridiculing it.
"Your issue with the video is...."
BUT YOU CAN'T DO THAT, CAN YOU? YOU'RE INCAPABLE OF ATTEMPTING TO SEE SOMETHING FROM ANOTHER POINT OF VIEW. THIS KIND OF RIGIDITY IS YOUR BASIC PROBLEM. |
OK, here goes:
Your issue with the video is:
1) Your original post
| Quote: |
Just another Fahrenheit 9/11-style emotional propaganda piece designed to make us hate Bush.
I didn't vote for him, don't agree with his government or policies, foriegn or domestic, but I don't dislike him personally, and I have always liked his way of being able to joke about himself...this kind of propaganda doesn't change my mind, it just alienates me from the people who produced it, as I resent it when an ideologue tries to manipulate my opinion. |
2) And later to be specific:
| Quote: |
| I prefer to deal with facts and not emotions. Bush has made many errors, some of them particularly bad. But we need to deal with raw facts and figures and not silly videos that mix noncontemporaneous things together to produce an emotional effect. |
There.
Do you take any issue with that?
Now, before we get down to things, understand this. I am capable of agreeing with Bush. I hate him, but I am capable of agreeing with him. Case in point: mission to the moon. Good idea, but I see no feasability for it in his administrative agenda. Hydrogen car? Cool, but no CONTEMPORANEOUS basis in reality.
That said, you can put my cynical, rigid, moronic, incapable-of-comprehending-your-Elysian-Fields-of-understanding stance where it pleasures you the most, which seems to be "out back".
Before we move on, let's look again at your "graduate-level" historical insight into this video:
Sorry I have to repeat (above, I had to show Gopher's stance without "twisting it":
| Quote: |
Just another Fahrenheit 9/11-style emotional propaganda piece designed to make us hate Bush.
I didn't vote for him, don't agree with his government or policies, foriegn or domestic, but I don't dislike him personally, and I have always liked his way of being able to joke about himself...this kind of propaganda doesn't change my mind, it just alienates me from the people who produced it, as I resent it when an ideologue tries to manipulate my opinion. |
Before we get to the video itself, would you not say that these statements are playing down Bush's responsibility for these statements? Minimalizing them? Obviating them?
I think they are. Is that a mischaracterization?
If that IS in fact a mischaracterization, then I would like you to articulate what exactly the point was in you bringing up the guy's ability to joke about himself. Were you just being "objective"?
Then, let's go to:
| Quote: |
| I prefer to deal with facts and not emotions. Bush has made many errors, some of them particularly bad. But we need to deal with raw facts and figures and not silly videos that mix noncontemporaneous things together to produce an emotional effect. |
You prefer to deal with "FACTS" and not "EMOTIONS"? And then you go on to play down the video as "silly". Am I mischaracterizing you?
Am I twisting something here?
Which brings us to the word contemporaneous:
At the same time
palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/Communication/Brana/Glossary.html
occurring in the same period of time; "a rise in interest rates is often contemporaneous with an increase in inflation"; "the composer Salieri was contemporary with Mozart"
coetaneous: of the same period
If you think at that time that people weren't dying for the very purpose that Bush was joking about, then you are on drugs.
We are not talking about whether events were contemporaneous. They were. It's not an issue of whether these people were laughing at slides of dead soldiers. They obviously weren't. Were they laughing at the mission Bush had sent other people to die for? To "disarm Iraq"? Yes, they were.
Your response? Bush has made some more insensitive remarks.
I ask you: What is your intention in saying such a thing?
Is it not to write it off?
Speech-writers?
Is it not to write it off?
Am I mischaracterizing you?
If it's not to write it off, then what exactly was your point in bringing up these things?
And, if I may ask in my neandrathal ignorance, what "raw facts" have you used in this thread? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 28, 2005 9:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| Sorry, I was on vacation. |
Please return to your "Bobster" persona. It's clear who you are. It's difficult to converse with a multiple personality like this... 
I lost interest in this one a long time ago. You hate Bush, you burn with hatred for him and you're intolerant of anyone who doesn't hate him. You're an extremist. Fine. Done. Next? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 28, 2005 9:44 pm Post subject: ... |
|
|
You are a noob to this forum and demonstrate it well.
Harassment. Stalking. Lying. Mischaracterizing.
Run away, but don't come bleating this pap later.
Cheers.
-NM |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wylde
Joined: 14 Apr 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 29, 2005 2:22 am Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
You are a noob to this forum and demonstrate it well.
Harassment. Stalking. Lying. Mischaracterizing.
Run away, but don't come bleating this pap later.
Cheers.
-NM |
do you have any real life or do you just spend all of your free time sitting in this forum spouting off?
it is funny to see your continual spew.. by all means, please keep the entertainment going |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 29, 2005 7:00 pm Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
do you have any real life or do you just spend all of your free time sitting in this forum spouting off?
it is funny to see your continual spew.. by all means, please keep the entertainment going |
Glad my spew mixes well with your beer.
I prefer your Gopher persona. Please revert back. |
|
| 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
