100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
|
Edited by
InvictusV
on
Fri 06/19/15 06:43 PM
|
|
"Chinas 100 year plan is based on deception." IV The Soviet Union collapsed in part due to inept central (politburo) planning. Good riddance. But China's politburo is damned near brilliant. China has been accused of doing capitalism better than the capitalists. China got high-speed rail in a fraction of the time it'd have taken in the West. I wouldn't call rendering a few rocky reefs by dredging material onto them is "deception". I'm not calling it fair. But I do believe it strengthens their claim in the territorial dispute. "But, it is working in the manner in which Mao envisioned." IV I don't think China is particularly Maoist in 2015. If it is, I'm not seeing it. Mao's agricultural reforms have been abandoned. Some of the most successful aspects of China are those most Westernized. Hong Kong has taught the mainland a stunning lesson. In one 99 year lease, Hong Kong left the mainland in the dust. "It is hard for me to want to be friends with China considering what depths they go to in terms of cyber espionage and outright theft of intellectual property." IV All that, and much, MUCH more! I'm not suggesting we should be friends with China because they're so warm and fizzy. I'm suggesting; geo-strategically, economically, we're better off with China as a friend, than an enemy. "I still contend that if China had to play by the rules they would still be a backwater third world crap hole that was struggling to survive." IV And thus, a brilliant, well chosen example of what a formidable foe China could be; and yet one more example of why we're better off not getting on China's bad side. You're RIGHT! The rules aren't binding on China. That's the kind of loose cannon you want to install a U.S. burr under the saddle? PS Yes. That's right. "Fizzy". The deception is the backbone of the plan. Lure the west into believing they are winning hearts and minds with money and lax enforcement of rules. We thought we were opening their market by playing dumb when in reality they were betting that we were dumb. This vast emerging market with a billion potential consumers is the siren singing. They have not strayed far from the Maoist ideology. This perception that they are capitalists is a facade. They are communists that run down their own people with tanks. The government censors the press, the Internet, print publications, and academic research, and justifies human rights abuses as necessary to preserve social stability. It carries out involuntary population relocation and rehousing on a massive scale, and enforces highly repressive policies in ethnic minority areas in Tibet, Xinjiang, and Inner Mongolia. Though primary school enrollment and basic literacy rates are high, Chinas education system discriminates against children and young people with disabilities. The government obstructs domestic and international scrutiny of its human rights record, insisting it is an attempt to destabilize the country. http://m.hrw.org/world-report/2014/country-chapters/china These are just a few things we ignore because that song sounds so appealing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"We are over- extended. Anyone that believes otherwise is a fool." IV Perhaps Uncle Sam needs a big dose of the Serenity Prayer: God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference. I'm particularly concerned about Obama's Asian pivot. As I understand China's 100 year plan, China's diminutive but powerful politburo intends to have China as the global leader within a century. I'd like to see the U.S. befriend China, rather than draw it into polarized opposition. Why must we make so many enemies?! "Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none." Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), U.S. president. First inaugural address, 4 March 1801 We have discussed China previously and I think it is fair to say we have differing opinions on the subject. Chinas 100 year plan is based on deception. But, it is working in the manner in which Mao envisioned. You can look at this trade deal and see that Obama is not willing to do what his own party is demanding and include a provision that stops China and any other country from manipulating its currency. Currency manipulation is a huge problem for us in terms of selling our products at competitive prices. It is hard for me to want to be friends with China considering what depths they go to in terms of cyber espionage and outright theft of intellectual property. I still contend that if China had to play by the rules they would still be a backwater third world crap hole that was struggling to survive. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IV, I wouldn't over-interpret / misinterpret "over-extended". It can mean a wide variety of things; but basically means that the government's resources are inadequate. Can we really look at the U.S. federal debt in excess of $18 $Trillion, and say we're not over-extended? Can we really read a quotation like this: "... today there are over 320,000 [U.S.] Army troops alone, deployed in 120 countries overseas. That's more than 60% of the entire [U.S.] Army." NBC-TV Nightly News March 9, '04 Does Canada, or some other fairly Western governed nation you'd prefer to compare it to, do that? "When your outgo exceeds your income, the upshot will be your downfall." Paul Harvey I am specifically referring to his post. The Western Roman empire was over-extended militarily, economically and in its inability to govern far away lands effectively. There is no real definitive explanation as to why Hadrian built his wall, but one theory I can believe is that it was done to control smuggling of goods without being taxed. That sounds pretty desperate... We are over- extended. Anyone that believes otherwise is a fool. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
InvictusV
on
Fri 06/19/15 03:21 PM
|
|
"The Roman Empire and the Holy Roman Empire are entirely different things, and were only vaguely related." IF Yes. That was my error. Thank you for the correction. My intended point was being over-extended can lead to downfall. It's a risk imperial powers run. Related: Roman Empire (r�-m�N� �m�p�r�) Also called Rome (rom) An empire that succeeded the Roman Republic during the time of Augustus, who ruled from 27 B.C. to A.D. 14. At its greatest extent it encompassed territories stretching from Britain and Germany to North Africa and the Persian Gulf. After 395 it was split into the Byzantine Empire and the Western Roman Empire, which rapidly sank into anarchy under the onslaught of barbarian invaders from the north and east. The last emperor of the West, Romulus Augustulus (born c. 461), was deposed by Goths in 476, the traditional date for the end of the empire. Excerpted from The American Heritage� Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition � 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved. IF, Why was the Western Roman Empire unable to defend against the barbarian onslaught? Was it not at least in part because it was over-extended? Thanks again IF. IF Do you deny since WWII, U.S. foreign policy has become more Machiavellian than before? And that the U.S. is about the most imperial power on Earth today? If not U.S., who? "I personally am fed up with people making the statement that "our xxxx is BROKEN!" IF I'm not sure why. U.S. NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK The Outstanding Public Debt as of 19 Jun 2015 at 09:57:52 PM GMT is: $ 1 8 , 1 5 4 , 8 0 1 , 6 7 4 , 9 7 7 . 6 5 The estimated population of the United States is 320,816,957 so each citizen's share of this debt is $56,589.28. http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/ I understand. Some economists scale federal debt to GDP, and some of those that do say we're not wildly beyond what is survivable. I'm not sure that's all there is to it. I'm not predicting doom; although even the more responsible economists acknowledge the current rate of deficits isn't sustainable. But my objection to deficits are several. My two main reasons: - We're spending the money of citizens that haven't been born yet. That violates one of the Founding principles of the United States of America. It is literally: taxation without representation. - Another main reason: "What's pernicious about deficits for conservatives is this. It makes big government cheap. What we're doing, we're turning to the country, the "conservative" administration turns to the country and says: We're going to give you a dollar's worth of government, we're going to charge you seventy five cents for it. And we're going to let your kids pay the other quarter." George Will Nov 30, 2003 If hope I have not missed your point IF. His point comes from his belief in the modern progressive narrative that the Roman empires willingly transformed into diverse societies. According to these theories they were open borders people and welcomed other cultures with open arms and were much better off for it. They didn't fall... they progressed... haha.. It had nothing to do with military defeats... an over taxed failing economy or pi$$ poor governance.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wonder if the Romans spent 66% of their budget on entitlement programs...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Any entity that can collect trillions of dollars and disperse those funds to whomever they want will always be relevant. If you asked are they competent then that is a different story entirely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am amused by these gun grabbing arguments.
The vast majority of these atrocities are taking place in soft targets.. ie.. gun free zones.. Schools.. theaters.. churches... I don't recall anyone shooting up a 'Gun Nut' NRA meeting... I wonder why that is? Chicago.. Baltimore.. so on and so forth.. strict gun laws... does that stop the violence? Ughhh.. the statistics don't show that. I just have to ask.. did prohibition stop people drinking alcohol? NO Did it create a very wealthy and connected criminal class? Ask the Kennedys. How about that war on drugs? Has prohibition stopped people from selling or indulging in drugs? NO Has that led to a wealthy and connected criminal class? See Mexican Drug Cartels... or the Colombians that ran South Florida.. Will banning all weapons stop people from selling or buying guns? NO Will it lead to a very wealthy and connected criminal class? See Mexican Drug and then Weapons dealing cartels.. Isn't it ironic that the gun grabbers want a ban, but are they smart enough to realize that their love of open borders will allow a steady flow of illegal weapons pouring in from Mexico? You can't stop people from drinking.. doing drugs.. or buying weapons.. But what it does create are wealthy criminals that won't hesitate to use those weapons. And you damn sure can bet they won't hesitate because no one else will have any.. including you gun grabbing nimrods. And in conclusion... More people die year after year because of drunk drivers than hand guns... But keep beating that gun ban drum and love you some open borders.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
new ten dollar bill?
|
|
I am surprised it won't be Kim Kardashian's a$$...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Curvy or slim/skinny
|
|
Ahh ok cool  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Curvy or slim/skinny
|
|
To make a thread like this is silly to begin with what a man finds attractive in a woman depends on the man does it Not? Some like slim and petite and that is A-ok some like them. athletic some like blonds or only redheads my point darling for that post was not to say I am better but only to say I am comfortable with who I am at 46 and really don't give a rat's azz what anyone else thinks  I just liked the description you gave.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Curvy or slim/skinny
|
|
Not in competition with other women we all got the same parts Ain't no size two never gonna be got wide hips Big boobs legs so long I stand head and shoulders above rest (Joking) 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
TPP?
|
|
hmm i havent really seen it at all being covered. you would think this stuff would be al over the main stream. I watched about 4 hours of debate and the votes today on CSPAN. TPP wasn't voted on.. it was fast track authority or TPA. Was TPA voted on? Yes. It passed the House by a few votes. But it has to now go to the Senate and then back to the House for a final vote. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
TPP?
|
|
hmm i havent really seen it at all being covered. you would think this stuff would be al over the main stream. I watched about 4 hours of debate and the votes today on CSPAN. TPP wasn't voted on.. it was fast track authority or TPA. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
"Conspiracy Theorists"
|
|
still waiting on your explanation conrad of how 2 PLANES KNOCKED DOWN 3 BUILDINGS? you cant do it can you? didnt think so. you really need to do your own Research my Man!  those little Jabs are of yours show how little you actually know about Demolition and Engineering! im not throwing any jabs conrad, im simply asking you, how 2 planes knocked down 3 buildings? why dont you enlighten me as to how that would happen. im not trying to be a d1ck about it, but i dont see how 2 planes could knock down 3 buildings. and why did they collapse in on themselves, instead of tipping to the side? like i said im not trying to be a d1ck about it but i just dont understand it. if you can't understand, we can't force you to understand... some people just can't get physics or science... your mind is made up, there's no changing that, no matter how much logic anyone applies here... this is about the 1,314 9/11 post on here... your not the only one who can't get it... well then moe, help me understand it. tell me how a building, that wasn't hit by anything, simply collapsed in on itself? if you understand it so well, then explain to me how that would happen. building 7 was not hit by anything, and yet it fell it the same style as a controlled demolition. enlighten me as to how that would happen. WTC7 was hit by falling debris from WTC1. There are plenty of pictures showing damage to WTC7 before it collapsed. The idea that 'nothing' hit WTC7 is not reality. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway you wanna spin it, a liar is....a liar. Then why aren't you calling for Bruce Jenner to return his gold medals or the millions of dollars he made off his fame since the wheaties covers? He gained financially and is still doing so directly from lying and deceiving. He isn't a he. Marion Jones lost her medals. Lance Armstrong lost many trophies and had to pay millions in damages to the postal service his biggest sponsor. Ms. Dolezal has issues with her estranged parents, now she's out of a job because, we don't know why just yet but she is taking a considerable loss for standing up for what she believes in and the people she has chosen to HELP. I don't care what color her skin is and neither does the NAACP who has stated on the record that skin color has nothing to do with attaining her position. Why does anybody else as long as she is doing good in this world? Explain that to me, if you can. This would be relevant if he competed as a woman, but was genetically a man. He won the medals as a man vs men. So why the hell does he or she or whatever have to give them back now? Because if Bruce can afford the operation and wants to be Kaitlyn he can be Kaitlyn. Rachel Dolezal is Rachel Dolezal. She's not changing names or evading taxes. She's living her life and doing good things for people less fortunate than she was. If her broken relationship with her parents is a crime then 96.3% of people born in the last 75 years would be serving life sentences. She didn't have to have surgery to bolt on accessories. She married, had children of her own and dedicated her life to helping people. The NAACP said that race was not a determining factor for her or any other employees. She didn't 'sneak' in and tie up her predecessor, she worked her way up through the organizationto what is assumed to be a position of power. Her coworkers certainly knew who she was. They may not have known what race she checked off on some official document because it was private and confidential. Homosexuals do not have to disclose their orientation, and asking them accusing them or talking about them negatively can range from grounds for dismissal to a sexual harassment lawsuit [IF doing so makes them uncomfortable]. There is a documentary entitled 'The Woman That Wasn't There'.. I suggest you watch it if you haven't already. This documentary covers all the points you just made from the perspective of the people that were lied to by someone that did a very good job helping them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway you wanna spin it, a liar is....a liar. Then why aren't you calling for Bruce Jenner to return his gold medals or the millions of dollars he made off his fame since the wheaties covers? He gained financially and is still doing so directly from lying and deceiving. He isn't a he. Marion Jones lost her medals. Lance Armstrong lost many trophies and had to pay millions in damages to the postal service his biggest sponsor. Ms. Dolezal has issues with her estranged parents, now she's out of a job because, we don't know why just yet but she is taking a considerable loss for standing up for what she believes in and the people she has chosen to HELP. I don't care what color her skin is and neither does the NAACP who has stated on the record that skin color has nothing to do with attaining her position. Why does anybody else as long as she is doing good in this world? Explain that to me, if you can. This would be relevant if he competed as a woman, but was genetically a man. He won the medals as a man vs men. So why the hell does he or she or whatever have to give them back now? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
at the end of 2014 ... 38 million people were forcibly displaced worldwide.
7.6 million in Syria alone.. That accounts for the highest number from one country. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is safe to say his strategy in Egypt was wrong.
His strategy in Libya was wrong. His strategy in Syria was wrong. Our support of the overthrow of Assad is why we are where we are today. Obama.. McCain and his lapdog Lynn Graham... There is no war large enough to quench the last twos blood lust. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
She is taking a beating because she is a liar that used those lies to gain a position she would have probably otherwise not gained. That may be true for some of her critics, but as far as I can tell, most of the lynch mob are liberals/progressives who are more concerned with comparing this to 'blackface' and 'cultural appropriation'. They say stupid things like "we all know that transgender is a thing, while transracial is not a thing, so she is a bad person.' I don't know her, I don't know how honest she is being in these interviews, I don't know the real reasons she is doing this. I do know that lynch mobs are usually more interested in feeding their own self righteous hatred then they are in taking a careful look at _why_ they are out for blood. I don't disagree with you. I watched a few black pundits say she can't identify with blacks because she is a product of white privledge. But the same can be said of Obama. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MsHarmony stated >>> some people dont like some people noone should lose sleep over it,,,, although it is disappointing when someone dislikes a whole RACE of people ,,, MM posted >>> yea, she disliked the blacks so much she became the head of a NAACP chapter... MsHarmony posted >>> did she say she disliked blacks? more than likely, from my experience with others,,when they start obviously being in denial about what they are or professing not to like a group they are a member of , its for one of three reasons,,, 1. they dislike THEMSELVES when they start trying to distance themself from the realities of their history/identity,,etc,,,,or 2. they have suffered some trauma or mistreatment by those they once considered their own,, so as to completely disassociate themselves from them or 3. They just are so incredibly pompous they need to be seen as the exception by distancing themself from the 'others' NPR - today: she married a black man - she has a biracial son - adopted another one that used to be in custody of her parents {something really ODD about that}...but if she's always identified herself with her husbands race ??? I don't get it - why do we have to bash her so badly? Not that you are but in general - she's taking a beating and it had nothing to do with her NAACP job performance! She is taking a beating because she is a liar that used those lies to gain a position she would have probably otherwise not gained. She is also a hypocrite because she sued Howard University claiming they discriminated against her because she was WHITE. She has used this chameleon approach to attempt to game the system. She deserves every bit of scorn and ridicule. |
|
|
|
|
Previous
