Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Californian Representative Mocks Constituent

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Californian Representative Mocks Constituent
Goto page 1, 2 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

geldedgoat

Joined: 05 Mar 2009

Posted: Tue Jun 29, 2010 6:52 pm Post subject: Californian Representative Mocks Constituent

I usually only check Fox News for gits and shiggles and the occasional news item amid a torrent of left-bashing, but this article blew me away. Is the hatred between the right and left so fierce in California that such a vile individual is repeatedly elected? Surely there are other Democrats worth electing that don't wipe themselves on the faces of their own constituents? I mean, disagreement is one thing, but mockery and derision of that manner should be embarassing to the people of his district. edit I forgot to mention there's a three-minute video of nearly the whole encounter in the link.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Tue Jun 29, 2010 7:13 pm Post subject:

I can understand how Mr. Stark feels. All these "Let's build a giant wall and line the boarder with military bases to keep out Mexicans who want to come work for sub-minimum wages," types are just tiresome. He didn't seem to be too harsh, he just didn't take the fellow particularly seriously. I think a better representative would have tried to explain why spending vast sums on locking down our border would in the long run be less beneficial economically than other options, but he probably recognized he wouldn't get anywhere with that. The comment about one of his constituents not being worth urinating on seemed pretty out of line, though.

geldedgoat

Joined: 05 Mar 2009

Posted: Tue Jun 29, 2010 7:30 pm Post subject:

Fox wrote:

I can understand how Mr. Stark feels. All these "Let's build a giant wall and line the boarder with military bases to keep out Mexicans who want to come work for sub-minimum wages," types are just tiresome.

I don't think that's a very fair portrayal of the individual in the video. He didn't ask, "Why isn't the federal government building a huge wall patrolled by the military?" He asked, "Why isn't the federal government doing more to seal the borders?" Only when mockingly pressed for a how from Stark did the man reply with the traditional idea of a militarily patrolled wall.* He also only made a slight reference to cheap, Mexican labor near the end of the exchange, beginning instead with the very real problem of violence pouring over the border.

And, again, this wouldn't be newsworthy if the representative merely disagreed with the questioner. Hell, even blithe dismissal would've been more tolerable than what he chose to say.

*Do you disagree with the notion that we should attempt to secure our borders? I know you generally disdain the use of military, but would patrolling the borders not be the most appropriate venue for their deployment? I thought you would believe that to be the only activity our military should be engaged in.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Tue Jun 29, 2010 9:13 pm Post subject:

geldedgoat wrote:

Only when mockingly pressed for a how from Stark did the man reply with the traditional idea of a militarily patrolled wall. *

Yes, but let's be realistic: the wall is the only answer he'd have accepted. It's the only answer any of them want to hear. If the government isn't building a wall and lining our border with troops, they aren't going to be happy. That's the source of Mr. Stark's scorn, I suspect. I understand your point about rudeness. I can just also empathize with Mr. Stark's exasparation.

geldedgoat wrote:

*Do you disagree with the notion that we should attempt to secure our borders? I know you generally disdain the use of military, but would patrolling the borders not be the most appropriate venue for their deployment? I thought you would believe that to be the only activity our military should be engaged in.

I believe we should attempt to secure our boarders against genuine threats to our society. I don't think impoverished Mexicans looking for work constitute such a threat. I don't feel illegal immigration is a military-applicable problem. Some people attempt to use "drug war violence" to support a military-focused solution, but I feel the better resolution to that problem is to simply legalize drugs.

If the Mexican army were regularly launching cross-border raids into our nation, I'd completely agree that the security of our borders would be an important issue. In the current situation, though, I feel like it's just another way to piss away taxpayer money on stupid plans meant to appease a certain subsection of the populace.

If you want to deal with illegal immigrants, you need to put pressure on the people who actually have something to lose: the people hiring them. I remember reading an article about about an illegal immigrant who had been caught working at the same restaurant for the third time (the first two times he was deported). A restaurant that systematically hires illegal immigrants -- even ones that were previously caught working there and deported -- is just allowed to continue functioning. That's not a serious anti-illegal immigration policy. It's a "use taxpayer money to harass illegal immigrants to no one's benefit for the sake of appeasing a certain group of voters" policy. So's the wall, and I don't want to pay for it. That goes double for Rand Paul's underground electrified fence.

The Happy Warrior

Joined: 10 Feb 2010

Posted: Tue Jun 29, 2010 10:05 pm Post subject:

Fox wrote:

geldedgoat wrote:

Exactly right, Fox. Mexicans coming over the border without inspection are guilty of a civil misdemeanor, and should be fined and given a notice to prepare to leave the country.

Firing upon such people is as far from a proportional response as the Chinese-North Korean border policy is far from the Canadian-American border policy.

geldedgoat wrote:

I mean, disagreement is one thing, but mockery and derision of that manner should be embarassing to the people of his district.

I agree that mockery and derision is unprofessional and we shouldn't condone it. But compared to the duplicity and trickery of many politicians, this newsworthy sin (and it was wrong) is actually a bit refreshing.

Most of the people who want to 'seal the borders' have little conception of how impractical and expensive their ideas are. They also have erroneous conceptions of established laws governing illegal border crossings.

bucheon bum

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2010 2:50 am Post subject:

Fox wrote:

geldedgoat wrote:

Only when mockingly pressed for a how from Stark did the man reply with the traditional idea of a militarily patrolled wall. *

geldedgoat wrote:

I have nothing to contribute to this except I'd like to say:

I find this post to be very eloquent and spot on. The most logical way to "secure our borders" would be to fine and penalize those that hire illegal immigrants. If that became legit and common, illegal immigration would significantly decrease. But of course that's never going to happen due to too many vested interests. Just like legalizing drugs won't happen in our lifetimes (beyond hopefully pot).

Leon

Joined: 31 May 2010

Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2010 7:19 am Post subject:

If ever there was a group that richly deserved a mocking it was that crowd. I can't see how he would lose political points for what he said, if anything he succeed in showing how foolish their points were. If he dignified the questions with serious answers then it would have made the questions themselves seem serious. I doubt that any one who would vote for him shares the views of the question askers so what did he have to lose?

bacasper

Joined: 26 Mar 2007

Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2010 8:21 am Post subject:

bucheon bum wrote:

Just like legalizing drugs won't happen in our lifetimes (beyond hopefully pot).

Where do you even get the hope for pot? We haven't even been able to get that legalized in over 40 years of trying. In fact, in a few states where it had been legal, it has been recriminalized.

And what happened recently in Canada? The Canucks wanted to legalize it, but the US put so much pressure that it didn't happen. Someone fill out the details.

Leon

Joined: 31 May 2010

Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2010 8:24 am Post subject:

bacasper wrote:

bucheon bum wrote:

Just like legalizing drugs won't happen in our lifetimes (beyond hopefully pot).

It's a slow process, but I do believe it's coming. Increasingly it's becoming a more acceptable political opinion, and the fact that states are increasingly legalizing it, or even seriously talking about it, is a step in the right direction. Will it happen all of a sudden, almost certainly not.

bacasper

Joined: 26 Mar 2007

Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2010 8:40 am Post subject:

Leon wrote:

bacasper wrote:

bucheon bum wrote:

Just like legalizing drugs won't happen in our lifetimes (beyond hopefully pot).

Well, that's just dandy. So if it'll take pot 60-100 years to get legalized, then it should take drugs, what, 1000?

(This convo's silly. I'm lightin' a blunt. Laughing

)

bucheon bum

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2010 9:43 am Post subject:

Well it is on the November ballot in CA to legalize it. 14 years ago CA approved medical marijauna and a number of states followed in its steps. There are also for-profit marijauna stores in CO (article recently in the NY Times about it). So there is slow but steady progress.

geldedgoat

Joined: 05 Mar 2009

Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2010 7:09 pm Post subject:

Fox wrote:

Yes, but let's be realistic: the wall is the only answer he'd have accepted. It's the only answer any of them want to hear.

Have you seen additional footage or read some background of the questioners that I haven't? I heard no chanting for walls. This again seems like a very unfair portrayal of the people in the video. There are many different ideas for securing the border floating around, and a physical wall is only one.

Quote:

I understand your point about rudeness. I can just also empathize with Mr. Stark's exasparation.

Exasparation typically comes after a long encounter. Stark's insults began before the other man spoke a single word.

Quote:

So should no government officials be deployed along the border? I still feel like this is the single most appropriate use for our military. I would also like to add at this point that I believe the military, in its most ideal incarnation, is nothing more than a police force with nearly unlimited jurisdiction. I realize you may disagree with that, but that is the viewpoint I am approaching this from.

Quote:

Some people attempt to use "drug war violence" to support a military-focused solution, but I feel the better resolution to that problem is to simply legalize drugs.

You will get absolutely zero disagreement from me on this issue. However, violence is spilling over the border now and an interdictory force should be deployed now to halt it while the effects of new legislation have time to develop.

One thing to keep in mind, though, is that the Latin American gang-violence we see along the border states is not confined to drug-related incidents. Prostitution (which I also believe should be fully legalised) is another source of income among others (and thus another source of violence), and it always will be unless no legal restrictions at all (including age) are placed on prostitution.

Quote:

I remember reading an article about about an illegal immigrant who had been caught working at the same restaurant for the third time (the first two times he was deported).

That is yet another great idea that I won't disagree with. But, again, it takes time to witness the effects of new legislation and enforcement.

Quote:

That goes double for Rand Paul's underground electrified fence.

Read your source again. He's calling for an electronic fence, not an electrified one. It doesn't sound very cost-effective, I'll grant you that, but it's at least less silly than an electrified one (fond memories of Ren & Stimpy just came to me, heh).

*****

Happy Warrior wrote:

The duplicity and trickery of other politicians, in most cases, should lead to jail time. I would rather this man just be publicly chastised by everyone, including the responsible members of his own party, and run quickly out of office.

*****

Leon wrote:

If ever there was a group that richly deserved a mocking it was that crowd.

I asked the same to Fox above, but I'll repeat it for you: Did you see additional footage of the exchange somewhere else? Stark's childish behavior began immediately before a single sound passed the other man's lips. How did he deserve the mockery by just being there?

Quote:

I can't see how he would lose political points for what he said

That was the point of my first post: he probably won't, and that's an incredibly sad sympton of the fractious nature of American politics nowadays. There's no reason, none, to approach a polite dissenter with scorn and mockery, and there's even less reason for supporters of his ideology to keep him in office after this and the many other such incidences.

Quote:

if anything he succeed in showing how foolish their points were.

...except he didn't do that. He didn't deny any of the points and concerns raised, he just made ignorant, sarcastic comment after ignorant, sarcastic comment. The one serious thing he said, that our borders are, in fact quite secure, was flat-out wrong. So what about that makes the others' points look foolish?

Quote:

I doubt that any one who would vote for him shares the views of the question askers so what did he have to lose?

Pride? Dignity? Self-repect? Oh wait, this is a politician we're talking about, my bad.

Leon

Joined: 31 May 2010

Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2010 7:30 pm Post subject:

geldedgoat wrote:

Leon wrote:

If ever there was a group that richly deserved a mocking it was that crowd.

There is no record of what was said before or after so it's hard to say. I am always a bit suspicious about why they would be at the event of a politician they obviously disagreed with. He was also affiliated with the minute men which the politician, and many others, obviously have a problem with. So was it polite, no, but I've seen so much mocking on both sides, meaning both left and right as well as between politicians and event goers. In this climate playing nice doesn't work well, which is unfortunate, but there it is.

[quote="geldedgoat"]

Leon wrote:

Quote:

I can't see how he would lose political points for what he said

See above about political climate. His supporters are probably as tired of hearing the same arguments and probably dig this stuff. The people were a part of a vigilante group, hard to take them seriously.

[quote="geldedgoat"]

Leon wrote:

Quote:

if anything he succeed in showing how foolish their points were.

Easy, he didn't dignify them with serious comments. I do wonder what he was doing in front of that audience, he let them make there points and let them sound foolish. It's kind of a cruel trick, but I'd say it worked.

[quote="geldedgoat"]

Leon wrote:

Quote:

I doubt that any one who would vote for him shares the views of the question askers so what did he have to lose?

Pride? Dignity? Self-repect? Oh wait, this is a politician we're talking about, my bad.

Now you're catching on.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2010 8:01 pm Post subject:

geldedgoat wrote:

Fox wrote:

Yes, but let's be realistic: the wall is the only answer he'd have accepted. It's the only answer any of them want to hear.

It was also the one the man immediately jumped to. Perhaps I'm being unfair. Perhaps there was some non-wall based answer this man would have happily accepted. Perhaps if Mr. Stark articulated something more along the lines of my proposed solution, the man would have nodded and been convinced. I can't prove otherwise. I simply doubt it, very strongly.

geldedgoat wrote:

Quote:

I understand your point about rudeness. I can just also empathize with Mr. Stark's exasparation.

Exasparation typically comes after a long encounter. Stark's insults began before the other man spoke a single word.

In my experience, though, exasparation can carry over from previous events. You can see this phenomenon often, for example, on internet forums. People who have been around for a long time and have all ready discussed a particular issue at length often demonstrate immediate exasparation if a new member makes an argument they feel has all ready been sufficiently debunked, even if the new member wasn't around when it was discussed.

Is this fair to the new member? No, probably not, but from a psychological point of view it's fairly obvious why they behave that way. If the people of California wish to hold Mr. Stark accountable for his testy behavior, I certainly won't blame them, but that doesn't change the fact that I find it understandable. Then again, I find it understandable on a personal level. On a professional one, even if Mr. Stark felt exasparated, it wouldn't have hurt to try to win the man over with explanations and arguments. He certainly didn't do any favors to his side of the debate with his behavior, and in fact probably just caused the world views of such individuals to be more cemented against him. I'm not sure if that's related to the point you're making, though, which seems to be just that a legislator owes his constituents some basic level of respect, even if he feels their questions or comments are ridiculous.

geldedgoat wrote:

Quote:

So should no government officials be deployed along the border?

I think government check points at border-crossing roads are a fine idea. There should also obviously be some measure of police presence, for the sake of people who live near the border. I think our relations with Mexico are good enough that we don't need a string of military bases, though.

geldedgoat wrote:

I still feel like this is the single most appropriate use for our military. I would also like to add at this point that I believe the military, in its most ideal incarnation, is nothing more than a police force with nearly unlimited jurisdiction. I realize you may disagree with that, but that is the viewpoint I am approaching this from.

Maybe in an ideal world the military would just be a police force. Given the kinds of things militaries do in the real world, though, we don't live in that ideal world, so I don't have much to say about it.

geldedgoat wrote:

Quote:

Some people attempt to use "drug war violence" to support a military-focused solution, but I feel the better resolution to that problem is to simply legalize drugs.

I'm completely fine with American police responding to violence that happens within America's borders. I don't consider that a part of border security, since I feel responding to violence is the duty of the police regardless of where in the nation it occurs.

geldedgoat wrote:

Quote:

That goes double for Rand Paul's underground electrified fence.

I have to admit, I did misread that. I still think it's a waste of money, but at least it's not as crazy and inhumane as I thought it was.

geldedgoat

Joined: 05 Mar 2009

Posted: Thu Jul 01, 2010 11:58 pm Post subject:

Fox wrote:

While googling for a response from Stark's offices, I came across another video with some additional excerpts from the meeting. The first few minutes are identical to the video in the original article, but skip to about 3:20. There you'll see another man in the audience mention a plan just like the one you outlined before, and the Minute Man appears to agree with it.

Leon wrote:

I am always a bit suspicious about why they would be at the event of a politician they obviously disagreed with.

The event was a town hall meeting, not a political rally. The whole point of these meetings is for citizens to have a chance to voice their concerns to their elected representatives.

Quote:

He was also affiliated with the minute men which the politician, and many others, obviously have a problem with.

Watch the extended video found above, and you'll see many people who "obviously have a problem with" Rep. Stark, yet they somehow manage to compose themselves like mature adults.

Quote:

So was it polite, no, but I've seen so much mocking on both sides, meaning both left and right as well as between politicians and event goers. In this climate playing nice doesn't work well, which is unfortunate, but there it is.

I have a feeling this has turned into me just beating a dead horse, but I can't believe how blas� you are with political disagreements being turned into fierce hatred. The video shows an isolated event in which one "side" remains polite and professional while the other immediately flips his F%&* YOU! switch. His behavior was far, far beyond merely not being polite.

Quote:

The people were a part of a vigilante group, hard to take them seriously.

What vigilante group are you talking about? Only one man was identified as a member of an organization that patrols various areas along the southern border and reports illegal activity to the proper authorities. By the definition of the word, then, the group does not engage in vigilantism.

Quote:

I do wonder what he was doing in front of that audience, he let them make there points and let them sound foolish. It's kind of a cruel trick, but I'd say it worked.

I would ask why you believe the man's points to foolish, but I doubt I'd get much out of you. Feel free to share, though, if you'd like.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page 1, 2 Next
Page 1 of 2

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

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe