Since so much of language learning is subjective, and related to our attitude, and level of commitment, I am skeptical of all studies that show that one method of learning is better than another. If there were any real points in such a study I would try present evidence to the contrary.
However this is hardly comparable to my example.
For Trump supporters to believe that Obama caused the death of someone in the Iraq war at a time when he was a senator somewhere with no influence on this case, would be like a Clugston group saying that I never learned Chinese or something. In other words something in contradiction with obvious and provable fact.
I wouldn’t be inclined to blame Obama for Iraq. It would kind of interest me to know what his position was at the time? Was he for or against the war?
Did he publicly speak out against it?
Did he align himself with any efforts to stop the military action from taking place?
(I have no idea what the answer to any of these questions is, BTW.)
Whether Obama was in favour of Bush’s invasion of Iraq or not is not really relevant. He was not the cause of the death of Captain Khan as a large group of Trump supporters believe.
for the record, from Wikipedia
Barack Obama (who went on to win the election) was not a senator at the time of the voting of the Iraq War Resolution, but has repeatedly voiced his disapproval of it both before and during his senatorship, saying at an anti war rally in Chicago on October 2, 2002: “I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.” He also spoke of the “undetermined length… undetermined cost, [and] undetermined consequences” which even a successful war would bring.[4
I think it is of some relevance whether or not a public figure supported the war.
(But if Obama was, if fact, against the war, then I agree that it is plainly unreasonable to attach any kind of blame to him for this Khan guy’s death.)
“I think it is of some relevance whether or not a public figure supported the war.”
Sure, but maybe not for the specific discussion here. I guess that’s what he meant.
@Colin
I think there is an argument that major political figures can have - depending on their exact level of influence and their place in the wider scheme of things - some share of a collective blame for a bloody debacle such as the Iraq war.
(It’s not any exact analogy, but the successful Albert Speer defence at Nürnburg was based on this principal: he accepted a major share of the collective guilt for NS crimes as a member of the political elite, while vigorously denying any specific actual involvement in any violent or criminal act. It got him off with 20 years instead of a death sentence!)
But as I say, if Obama was always vocally opposed to the invasion of Iraq, then notions of collective blame couldn’t apply to him - clearly.
@Prinz
I see what you mean. Whatever the case, it seems to me from some internet searching, that Obama was against the war from the beginning, but I can’t really confirm this. Here is a transcript of a speech he gave in 2002 apparently.
If he really said all this, then I think it lets him off the hook for the Iraq war, but I am not so convinced it is real. I suspect it is, but it is hard to say.
The audio starts off with the first part of the text, and the voice is obviously Obama’s. But then it turns into loads of other voices. I would be interested to know if he really said what was in the text. If so, he deserves credit.
@ Prinz and Colin,
Obama’s opposition to the Iraq War is widely considered to be why he beat Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Democratic Party primary.
I once saw a sign “alien” in an airport, when a game called “alien game” was popular with young people. I don’t know why you want to stick to the expression “foreigner”, even if it sounds better than “alien”.
- As a personal preference, I am not going to get offended by whichever word they use.
- Alien actually has multiple definitions one suggesting I am not even from this planet, foreigner doesn’t have this problem is is more technically correct.
- Between calling myself a foreigner vs. international citizen(other synonyms: global citizen/world citizen/ etc.) means that would identify myself differently. If I am a foreigner I identify myself as a insert native country but currently I am in a different country/location. As an international citizen I would FIRST identify myself as part of the world/global community and SECOND(only if I want to) as a insert native country.
“The term global citizenship or world citizenship typically defines a person who places their identity with a “global community” above their identity as a citizen of a particular nation or place.”
To CHOOSE to change your identity is fine, to be FORCED to changed your identity is not ok. What I call myself is my choice.
@ Davidjvl
I remember back in 2008 he, and his supporters, saying that he was opposed to the war, but did he actively oppose it before it started? That was the question here.
(Though I must admit, I don’t remember why it is the question here)
@Colin
I found what was presumably a link to those same remarks from 2002 that you linked to, on the now non-functioning site from Obama’s presidential campaign. It is very safe to say that he was against the war. Apparently, there was worry among party insiders about his giving the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention BECAUSE of this opposition. This was the speech that brought the then state senator into the national spotlight, by the way.
https://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/02/remarks_of_illinois_state_sen.php/
I agree. Hillary is everything Trump is but worse. A liar and a criminal who laughs at child rape victims. She is definitely not someone I would want leading my country. I am thankful to live in a different country so I do not have to vote for either.
Please, calm down! Whom do you agree with? What is your argument? Why do you say that she is “a criminal who laughs at child rape victims”?
Sorry, I did not intend my comment to come off as aggressive. The criminal part was referring to the recent fiasco with her and her emails, and while not directly laughing at the victim she was fully aware that her client (the rapist) was guilty and in leaked (?) tapes said some quite disgusting things. [ more about the story can be read here: http://freebeacon.com/politics/the-hillary-tapes/ ]. Liars and narcissists are terrible in their own right but someone who talks like that about child rape is an evil sociopath .
“The criminal part was referring to the recent fiasco with her and her emails,”
She reportedly did not leak classified documents, so you cannot say that she is a criminal. Furthermore, this matter is unrelated to the court case you mentioned. The phrase “a liar and a criminal who laughs at …” is a very subjective, misleading one.
“While not directly laughing at the victim she was fully aware that her client (the rapist) was guilty and in leaked (?) tapes said some quite disgusting things.”
Even the “Washington Free Beacon” rightly wrote:
“From a legal ethics perspective, once she agreed to take the case, Clinton was required to defend her client to the fullest even if she did believe he was guilty.”
How are they unrelated when it involves the same person and their own actions? that doesn’t make sense.
And she is a liar (here’s her lying non stop: - YouTube). Yes, she was legally required to defend him and that is part of the U.S judicial system, but to laugh at any point in time while discussing the details of a rape case brings to light what kind of person she really is.
These two points are why I agree with JamesS that Trump is the lesser of two evils because while he is a narcissistic buffoon at least he seems somewhat human in comparison to Hillary.
“How are they unrelated when it involves the same person and their own actions? that doesn’t make sense.”(sic.)
First, a criminal is different from “a liar”.
Second, you used the expression “a criminal who laughs at …”, so you think that she is a criminal and this criminal has a unique tendency to laugh at something although this is not necessarily true of all criminals. She is a special type of criminal". If you put a comma before “who”, I will conclude otherwise.
Do you also think that she laughs because she is a criminal? If that is the case, you are intentionally forging a sort of criminal personalty in order to criticize her, a person whom you don’t know well. Of course, she is not a criminal but a lawyer-turned-female-politician.
“If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the second amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know. But I’ll tell you what, that will be a horrible day.” Donald Trump hints at assassination of Hillary Clinton by gun rights supporters https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/09/trump-gun-owners-clinton-judges-second-amendment?CMP=share_btn_tw
The claim was rejected by Jeff Sessions, a Republican senator from Alabama and longtime Trump supporter. He responded on CNN: “Totally wrong. I don’t believe that’s true. I don’t believe that’s at all what he meant.” But Sessions acknowledged: “It may have been awkwardly phrased.” (the source is the same as the previous excerpt)
“Although the second amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know.”
I wonder what kind of phrase tends to come after “maybe there is”. “A way”? Where is the predicate that corresponds to the subject “the second amendment people”? What did he want them to do?
Did he want to say that “people who own guns” could “do something” to prevent Hillary from being elected as president?
I expect she’ll eschew open top limos and stay well away from grassy knolls…
"“It’s called the power of unification – 2nd Amendment people have amazing spirit and are tremendously unified, which gives them great political power. And this year, they will be voting in record numbers, and it won’t be for Hillary Clinton, it will be for Donald Trump,” the statement read.
Trump himself seemed unaware of the controversy in an interview shortly after the rally, but he repeated that his point was that Second Amendment advocates are a powerful lobby. Former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani also came to Trump’s defense."
Believe who you want. It was ambiguous.