|
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 |
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
 Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 12:24 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Gopher wrote: |
Your position that American democracy does not function "as it was intended to" because a simpleton like Ron Paul decries this state of affairs while romanticizing an Early Republic that never existed -- and all this in an election year, no less -- betrays utter innocence if not foolish gullibility on your part.
You create an Ideal that never existed and then castigate contemporaries for failing to meet such Utopian standards.
Puerile.
And the mark of leftist politics, of course. |
Don't both sides of the political spectrum do this? Isn't that where a big part of conservatism stems from? The belief that one should return to the "roots" of the republic? As you mention above, that is what Ron Paul is doing himself, and while he is a bit of a loon, he is a right-wing loon is he not? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 12:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
I do not know what information you are taking in, but you might want to check Ron Paul's numbers in the polls and ask how many Republicans and especially how many on the right-wing are backing the man.
You might find that most of those who back Ron Paul are like Tiger Beer and BJWD aka thepeel: misguided and confused Idealists who are unfortunately not even registered Republicans or even American voters and therefore have no say at all in the upcoming decision to kick him out of the race in the first or at best second primary election. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 12:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
I do not know what information you are taking in, but you might want to check Ron Paul's numbers in the polls and ask how many Republicans and especially how many on the right-wing are backing the man.
|
Twist with the wind, much? Let's see, he is fiscally conservative, socially conservative, but not a Republican because you say so?
Arrogant. As ever.
And this from the guy who tried lied his ass off for how long on these boards claiming he was a Democrat so he could play the Centrist card and encourage Dems to DO NOTHING?
Please. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 1:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
You might find that most of those who back Ron Paul are like Tiger Beer and BJWD aka thepeel: misguided and confused Idealists who are unfortunately not even registered Republicans or even American voters and therefore have no say at all in the upcoming decision to kick him out of the race in the first or at best second primary election. |
Misguided. Confused. Idealists. Yup.
What do we call individuals registered as members of a party that has committed war crimes, rolled back civil liberties, defended torture, committed mass murder, outsourced war at the expense of "the troops". If I'm a misguided idealist for opposing all this, then what in the hell are you for supporting the party that caused it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 1:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
I do not know what information you are taking in, but you might want to check Ron Paul's numbers in the polls and ask how many Republicans and especially how many on the right-wing are backing the man.
You might find that most of those who back Ron Paul are like Tiger Beer and BJWD aka thepeel: misguided and confused Idealists who are unfortunately not even registered Republicans or even American voters and therefore have no say at all in the upcoming decision to kick him out of the race in the first or at best second primary election. |
you spend a lot of time explaining what you aren't.
i am curious as to what you believe in.
you understand the dynamics of the world.
| Quote: |
politics is the art of negotiating and reconciling what you call "special interests." Has always been so, from at least as early as feudal times, and indeed earlier and across cultures.
Indeed, George Washington advocated a Potomac improvement project. Good for the country, he argued. And in fact it was. But guess who owned property whose value multiplied after said project brought commerce through his lands en route the sea...
Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton negotiated a backroom deal over dinner one night -- that is, outside of Congress, where it was supposed to have been openly discussed -- that placed Washington, D.C. in its present location in exchange for Virginia's backing the Assumption Bill....Jefferson! My God!
Your position that American democracy does not function "as it was intended to" because a simpleton like Ron Paul decries this state of affairs while romanticizing an Early Republic that never existed -- and all this in an election year, no less -- betrays utter innocence if not foolish gullibility on your part.
You create an Ideal that never existed and then castigate contemporaries for failing to meet such Utopian standards. |
so my question is, doesn't that make you a little angry?
you know, the way it is?
and, aren't many great men those that stood up to, "the way it is"?
or are you benefiting from the "way it is", and thus have vested interest? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 3:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| thepeel wrote: |
| I had to change my name and password when I changed jobs as I was afraid the computer had logged them. |
Ah. A few of us had been curious about the name change for some weeks.
| Our obnoxious friend of old wrote: |
| You. Are. Not. Clever. Say that 3 times every morning in the mirror. |
Taking a leaf from your book...? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 3:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't think I'm clever and as such have no need to do so. Gopher does, and does.
A few of you were wondering? Like, you all talk about posters via email and pm's? That is uber, super nutty. I spend too much time trolling around on here as it is, but I certainly don't give two sh.its about any of your online personalities. I am indifferent to your very existence. I find it incredibly odd that you're not.
If I needed to start over, a la efl, I would have gotten a new account. I needed to protect my privacy from the many people who use my computer. I am fully unconcerned what some people, who exist only in digital form in my life, think of my Dave's ESL Cafe handle. Camon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 3:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| thepeel wrote: |
| A few of you were wondering? Like, you all talk about posters via email and pm's? That is uber, super nutty. I spend too much time trolling around on here as it is, but I certainly don't give two sh.its about any of your online personalities. I am indifferent to your very existence. I find it incredibly odd that you're not. |
I think you were mentioned a grand total of once, maybe twice. You're not that exciting that the internet was ablaze with gossip about you.
And yeah, some of us are quite chatty with each other. Some of us are 'people persons' - something you clearly are not. Keep up the scorn though - it's cute.
Last edited by Big_Bird on Thu Nov 29, 2007 3:55 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 3:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ohh man. You've figured me out! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 4:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Just a note in passing.
Back on Page 5 mindmetoo made a post demonstrating very well the difference between legitimate criticism of a particular US policy and anti-Americanism. It should be saved for future reference for those dolts who can't see the difference.
Aside:
Has anyone else noticed a rise in the level of hysterical posts lately? There are at least 4 people (unless some of them are socks of each other) who are holding on by the skin of their teeth (GREAT play, by the way. In times like these, it's worth a re-read.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 7:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for referencing this again, Ya-ta Boy.
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Although gopher we have found some common ground on a number of issues as of late, I still do think you over play the notion that criticism of the USA = anti-Americanism or being unpatriotic. |
Let me clarify this again. First, I do not think I have ever written the word "unpatriotic" on this website or elsewhere for that matter. It falls outside my usual vocabulary. So here you disagree with a position that was never mine.
Second, I never accepted, let alone perpetuated, any such absolute binaries as the one you ref here -- that is, "that criticism of the USA = anti-Americanism or being unpatriotic." Again, this position that you take exception to is not mine.
Rather, my disagreement with you would be where you seem to downplay or even deny that antiAmericanism exists in many cases. That many people, including Johnson, offer clever polemics in the guise of "legitimate criticism" in order to artificially cultivate outrage and to generally discredit, undermine, and in some cases attack the United States -- especially its government/system. It comes as no surprise to me when people like Chavez hold Chomsky's books in their hands while denouncing the United States or that people like bin Laden cite Blum's books. And, in any case, BJWD aka thepeel is showing all the classic signs of an antiAmerican outlook on this thread -- as do his very limited and hostile sources of information on American foreign affairs, including the OP.
There are far more professional and balanced views critical to American foreign policy than those we hear from the likes of Chalmers Johnson and Ron Paul, then. I cited one, for example, above. Layne joins many conservatives in critiquing postwar American foreign policy. No one calls him "antiAmerican." Same holds for writers like LaFaber and McCormick, and indeed many others. They write professionally and in an even tone, however. And people like their mentor, William Appleman Williams, for example, usually clarify...
| William Appleman Williams wrote: |
| Not even Joseph Stalin maintained that America's record in world affairs was exactly the reverse of this common view, and for Americans to do so would be to mistake candid and searching re-examination of their own mythology for a tirade of useless self-damnation. The classical ideas about American foreign policy are not all wrong. |
I find it intriguing but hardly surprising that most of the self-appointed, holier-than-though expert critics of American foreign policy on this board have never read a single one of these authors and in fact little on American foreign-relations in general besides something that they might hastily google. If I were to ask "What was the last book treating American foreign affairs you read?" few here could honestly answer the question. Indeed, even in BJWD's case, he has not even read Chalmers Johnson -- yet here he is on a thread dedicated to Johnson's worldview...
Last edited by Gopher on Thu Nov 29, 2007 7:57 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 7:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Indeed, even in BJWD's case, he has not even read Chalmers Johnson -- yet here he is on a thread dedicated to Johnson's worldview... |
If you were an undergrad or even a high school student I would fail you for reasons of basic reading comprehension.
We are not here to discuss Johnson's world view. Every single idea he has from A to Z LESS one idea termed blowback, and in the context of 9/11, is totally and fully irrelevant.
Do you get that?
Chalmers Johnson has one idea I agree with. And because I agree with this one idea, I am not therefore 100% accepting of every other position he might have ever expressed. Do you understand? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 8:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| thepeel wrote: |
| ...one idea termed blowback. |
"Blowback" is central to all that Johnson alleges about American foreign policy, BJWD.
Again, Chalmers Johnson misappropriates a Cold-War-era Agency term-of-art that pertains to friendly media outlets picking up black information from abroad (planted op-eds or other fabricated information, for example) and repeating it as if it were fact at home or in an allied state -- or at least a non-target. An unintended spread of disinformation or rumor meant to unsettle an enemy or other target.
CIA might have passed information to Western-European Communist Parties, for example, warning that Moscow was planning a violent purge to shake them up and see how many defectors might come running. CIA wanted Western-European Communists to believe this, but they never wanted the London or New York Times to report it as the truth. And they certainly did not want Congressmen reading it into the Congressional Record.
In any case, never had anything to do with what Johnson and Ron Paul claim it now means.
So if you would like to discuss "blowback," I suggest you start by confirming you understand the term. Do you get that?
Last edited by Gopher on Thu Nov 29, 2007 11:17 am; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 8:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
You have an absolutely psychotic and unhealthy obsession with the authors of books you disagree with. It is really quite funny. All one has to do to set you off is mutter Chalmers and out you come foaming, blazing, name-calling acting as jingoistic as possible.
The idea that 9/11 was a loosely a result of the history of American involvement in the muslim world is how blowback has been defined for the context of this thread. It was done early, and often. That you want to change the discussion away from that and onto either 1) me 2) anti-Americanism 3) EVIL Chalmers 4) how EVIL Chalmers misused the term demonstrates nothing less than a total emotional commitment to your flag.
You simply refuse a substantive discussion and want to direct all threads that criticize your government to topics unrelated to their initial intention. You do this time and time again, because you are emotionally unable to deal with criticism. Again, this isn't your fault, in the strictest sense of the word. You can't control the country you're born into. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 8:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
There are far more professional and balanced views critical to American foreign policy than those we hear from the likes of Chalmers Johnson and Ron Paul, then. I cited one, for example, above. Layne joins many conservatives in critiquing postwar American foreign policy. No one calls him "antiAmerican." Same holds for writers like LaFaber and McCormick, and indeed many others. They write professionally and in an even tone, however. And people like their mentor, William Appleman Williams, for example, usually clarify...
| William Appleman Williams wrote: |
| Not even Joseph Stalin maintained that America's record in world affairs was exactly the reverse of this common view, and for Americans to do so would be to mistake candid and searching re-examination of their own mythology for a tirade of useless self-damnation. The classical ideas about American foreign policy are not all wrong. |
|
Indeed, I've tried to introduce more balanced ideas as well. I'm making my way, rereading actually, through this book right now. The Future of Freedom by Fareed Zakaria. I've tried to post and comment on some of his essays on this forum a couple times before but to no avail. It just didn�t draw any interest, yet a nonsensical outlook on American foreign policy by Charlmers Johnson illicit a wide array of responses. If the books central thesis isn't somehow, 'America is bad" it's not worth reading. This should clue you in on the worldview of some posters on this forum. |
|
| 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
