Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Discussion Forum' started by TorontoReign, Nov 28, 2011.
Alright, thanks for the clarification.
What, like George W. Bush?
I didn't mean his formal role, even if he is delegated by the constitution to be the "boss man" he still wouldn't.
Other insanly rich powerfull people rule america imo
When the far right or far left gets their way the country ends up in the shitstorm we're in now. The majority of Americans are center-right. We haven't had a president that truly represented the people in decades. Now it's all about supporting corrupt unions, big business, and furthering their own power.
No shit, cat was an evangelical neo-con, a cronie-ist and a Texas oil man from old money, and he had a republican senate with a post-9-11 mandate. Guy said he talked to god. Never seen an administration be given carte blanche like that. You already had your boogieman.
At best, the only thing China and the US will be fighting over is the valuable mining contracts in Afghanistan. http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/06/14/china-us-afghanistan-mineral-mining/ and for those who have no idea why they are valuable http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mining_in_Afghanistan That's right America; we are going to put even MORE money into Afghanistan. Fantasic.
Huh. You wouldn't believe the Soviet Union.
I know I'm not an American, but as far as your country goes, it actually seems nice, when compared to my own home. I'd say Obama is (or had been) doing a somewhat fair job.
He was more of a corporate guy wrapped up in religious trappings
Mubarak without the murderous rage or gorgeous early years,
The far left hasn't gotten its way in ever in the US. In fact, there is no 'far left' in the US.
Oh really? How about Woodrow Wilson and FDR? They are considered the fathers of the far left Progressive movement and were probably the most corrupt, evil, and racist presidents we ever had IF you read up on it. Scary fucking stuff. Everything from Wilson's re-segregation to eugenics, propaganda that inspired the Nazis, FDR's secret internment camps, and massive coverups by Wilson of German terrorist attacks inside the US before WW1. FDR was so bad he was the reason presidents are now limited to only 2 terms in office.
Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton are a couple more. Only Jimmy Carter got his ass kicked out of office because he was too much of an apologist ideologue (hmm sounds like Obama) and Clinton was smart enough to realize moving to the center would win reelection. Remember Hillarycare?
When people say "there is no far left" they are living in a bubble and are probably in the far left and don't even realize it.
Your idea of far left is so skewed it isn't even funny.
You want far left? Look at actual socialist and communist parties, none of which play any role of remote significance in US politics. The only reason you identify people like FDR as 'far left' is that there is no one to his left in American politics to ever play a role of significance. That doesn't make him far left. The closest the US ever got to having a far left of significance was the Radical Reconstruction, and that lasted about four years before it reverted to appeasing big business and big capital.
To suggest that Clinton is far left is just beyond hilarious, by the way.
Also that's a nice collection of conspiracy theories and personal attacks, most of which have fuck-all to do with 'left' or 'right'. I'm not sure why you brought them up or what they have to do with anything, but you're sure showing your hatred and bias there.
What conspiracy theories? It's all well documented. Challenge me on one of them and I will bury you if you're too lazy to look it up on your own. Please look up just one of them you believe is one of my conspiracy theories. You might actually learn something new.
Of everything I wrote, that is what you respond to? Okay then.
Anyway, maybe 'conspiracy theories' isn't the right combination of words. 'Horribly slanted, biased, one-sided and hyperbolic versions of history' would be better.
I can do that too, though: Richard Nixon was a paranoid, racist, anti-semitic, corrupt president who abused his power more than almost any president in the history of the US. That's about the level of discourse you're engaging in right now.
But what specifically did I say you find to be a conspiracy theory or "horribly slanted yadda yadda"? Oh please chose the pre-WW1 terrorist attacks one. It will blow your mind. Or eugenics. How about re-segregation. Open a book.
Also, let's go back to your scale for "far left". By your thinking you are right, but is a common tactic used to dismiss the leftists in US politics by just pointing to an extreme example. That's like saying some guy who murdered his wife and kids isn't a criminal because Hitler killed 11 million.
Stop with the insults, and please stop trying to read my mind.
Also I don't think "one-sided" or "slanted" are unambiguous words. That doesn't mean what you're saying isn't factually true, it means that you're not presenting a complete picture, neglecting to place it in its historical context and failing to provide any comparison to other people. It also means that you're dragging in things that are completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. It's neat that you want to rant about FDR and Woodrow Wilson's personal failings, but that has very little to do with whether or not they were "far left". And no, eugenics and racism are not "far left" politics.
I have no clue what in the hell this has to do with anything I wrote. My point is that you define "far left" in a way that makes it completely impractical and unrealistic. It has nothing to do with 'excusing' anything - me saying that FDR isn't far left isn't defending him or his politics in any way. In fact, I'm not saying anything about the validity, applicability or desirability of his politics.
Wait. Where is the insult? Was it the "open a book" comment? You should. Everybody here should. Reading is a good thing. I've been reading up on this stuff for years and is very interesting to talk about. I'll give a list of books to check out if you care about history outside of the crap they skim over in the classrooms.
The way you phrase it you're not suggesting someone go read a book, you're implying that they never do. And if that's not your intent, you really need to work on your writing.
Also, no thanks. I've got plenty of reading material about historical topics I actually care about.
Sorry Mad Max, but to even suggest there is any such things as a ''far-left'' is US politics is extremely dubious at best. The failings or perceived failings of FDR or Wilson have nothing to do with them being ''far-left''. This is a country where ''socialist'' and ''far-left'' is viewed as an insult in most political circles, among other things. Happily you yourself provide an example of such opinion right here...
Godwin's Law much? Yay comparing a very general political opinion to a mass-murderer, totally relevant. And if you look at the rest of the world, yes the ''leftist'' in the US are indeed far from any extreme. if you think Woodrow Wilson is far-left you would probably have an heart attack simply reading the policies of the New Democratic Party in Canada or certain Parties in Europe such as the Parti Socialiste in France, among other things. And most of these are just ''left'' on the scale; far-left is more or less communism, very rare even in other regions of the world, and in the US it never was any sort of option. Obama a leftist? Please, he is massively backed up by Wall Street and used State money to bail out many big corporations, pretty-much the antithesis of what a ''true'' leftist would do.
lol, why do I have the feeling I posted in the same thread before? I had to double check before I was sure that it was just a deja' vu.
A lot of people like to make comments about China but most of them don't have a clue about the country at all. The includes the journalists that was supposed to be informed and educated about the subject matters they write.
I sort of just skimmed through the basic discussions, but let's see:
1. RMB is a closed currency. You can not buy RMB outside of China, unless you are going through the black market.
2. If China and the US goes to war, the one to lose (in one sense)immediately is probably China. I am assuming a declaration of war negates the need for the US to pay the billions of USD debt owned to China. Imagine, your biggest debt holder is gone just like that, poof! 1100 Billions. I wonder how many years of surplus would that bring?
3. Even though China has the largest standing army in the world, 3.5 million and counting, I don't know how many is really ready to die for the party these days. Glory and profit with the least amount of risk is the rage these days. And from the start, I doubt they would be killing Americans, 2 places will light up first, ROC and South Korea. If one were to ignore ICBMs and such, US and China is still an ocean apart. It would be difficult for China to actually land soldiers on US soil.
4. Now here is the interesting bit about Chinese politics at the moment. After Mao and Deng, there is no real leader where the party cadres can point to as the one to make all the decisions at the moment. Even Deng had to jostle, cajole, pressure and coerce other powerful faction leaders into his bidding. Deng saved the party and created some of the current situations with the "To get rich is glorious" scheme after 1989.
Anyway, 4 - 5 things holds absolute power over China and ability to rule 1.3 billion people. CMC, NPCSC, CC of CCP/CPC, PSC and the State Council. Those of note will be the Politburo Standing Committee, the Central Military Commission, and probably the National People's Congress's Standing Committee ( Central Committee has historically been more influential in the party especially when Mao held the reins).
Hu Jintao is probably the current head ever since he jostled Jiang Zemin out of the most important position in the state, the chairman of the CMC and replaced a lot of Jiang's allies with his own after the new round of promotion and retirement in the PLA. But even that didn't happen until 2004, and the new round of promotion and retirement of Jiang's allied PLA generals didn't end until recently.
The general sentiment of the 2 recent leaders is that they are a stark contrast of each other. Jiang was considered a progressive, economic development first and political posturing second. Money comes before politics or face. He supposedly favored trade over guns. He technically belongs to the Shanghai camp. Hu on the other hand is a hardliner, and a conservative. In his eagerness to assert his power, he also showed that he is a bit sensitive and dislikes criticism. Hu is a staunch Beijing conservative. One thing old Beijingese cares about, is face. Most of his action can be viewed in that vein. It's generally considered by many that Hu is probably the least "heavy" of all China's leaders so far in its 60 years, which could be the reason why he cares about his hold on power and his legacy so much.
Ignoring the US or Euro's economical woes at the moment, China is facing some really big problems.
5. The only point I agree with so far, because there is a possibility of a civil war in China. The reason I posted some basics about the China's political situation above is because I want to explain why that's likely. Hu won his current position through his Beijing polished political skills and guile. That doesn't mean that his power is absolute, because he also has to coerce, cajole and blackmail other factions in the party just like Deng did. He is apparently putting a lot of pressure on the Shanghai camp, ousting quite a few personnel implanted by Jiang, thus sowing possible seeds of dissent. China also faces enormous social and economical problems that will get worse in the future. The idea that China and its market/economic growth will bail out the US or Euro is fairly flawed given China's problems.
Hu is trying to get out of it by preaching Confucianism. It won't work. Cultural revolution destroyed whatever morality and traditions inherited through years by the Mainland Chinese society. His dad was also a victim, and he should know better. But it's not like he has a choice in the matter. The disparity between the rich and poor is huge in China, especially between one that has a political pipeline and one that doesn't. The privatization of state enterprises is pretty much over and there isn't more money in that coffer any more. Even though Hu dealt with the social upheaval that was associated with the privatization with a deft hand, there are still millions out of work. (which is ironic, given that they are the "Communist" party, who is suppose to represent the poor factory workers and farmers against the filthy rich elitist land owners and business operators) 300 million or so is still living in absolute poverty. 98% literacy rates sounds nice until you learned that millions of young people barely graduated elementary or junior high school. Corruption is the de facto way to do anything.
And one of the biggest problems many mainland Chinese do dare voice out loud is their absolute distrust of authority and government. It's difficult to run a country this big when most of those involved in the government is out for political and financial gain. The problem is surfacing especially acutely among the current generation of professionals and middle upper class that holds up a large part of Chinese economy. One can easily see this from all the food scandals that are leaked out of China.
I haven't even started on the super biggies - land ownership, fiduciary responsibility, social welfare and lack of any sort of fairness in the courts.
A basic example that I use a lot. Should the current generation retire, and their housing lease is up, the new generation will have to support 7 people including his mortgage. His parents, his wife's parents, he and his wife and his child. I do not wish for this kind of baggage upon anybody.
As for a FallOutesque vision of dystopian world and a war between the 2? Well, economic warfare between the 2 has already been going for a long while now, but that doesn't make for goodaction movies or games.
Thank you Starseeker! This is the kind of answer I was looking for. I thought that China would be on the losing side of a war with the US even with the US in such horrible shape, but I wasn't sure about some of the logistics involved. The aftermath of the Iraq war and the rebuilding comes to mind......
I was mainly intrigued by all of this since China, Russia, Pakistan, and Iran are so allied and all are spouting out threats of WWIII.
I have also read numerous articles and a few books which claim that China will succumb to a Civil War despite all their economic prosperity.
Needless to say that is why I asked the question here; A wide variety of opinions on the subject! Thank you all.
Edit. I just noticed that it said Thanks you Starseeker. Doh! Drugs are bad.