Hacked By AdGhosT & Tayeb TN & bo hmid

 

 

 

 

 

close your eyes and listen Elfen Lied <3

Greets~:AdGhosT-- adel pro tn- Anonback Tnx - A_Ghacker - xvirus -Malousi Foryn - MaxKiller - Nexamos

Hacked By AdGhosT

Hacked By AdGhosT & Tayeb TN & bo hmid

 

 

 

 

 

close your eyes and listen Elfen Lied <3

Greets~:AdGhosT-- adel pro tn- Anonback Tnx - A_Ghacker - xvirus -Malousi Foryn - MaxKiller - Nexamos

Google, China and Taiwan » The Peking Duck

Google, China and Taiwan

Below is a guest post by my friend in Taiwan Bill Stimson. This post doesn’t necessarily reflect my own viewpoint on the subject. There are a few points, in fact, that I’d take issue with, though I agree with the piece in spirit.


Information Imperialism?

by William R. Stimson

What if the Chinese government stopped lying to its people and admitted inconvenient truths? What if some in power were swept away as a result and others arose to take their place? Would this be the end of China as we know it? Would this spell the defeat of Chinese culture at the hands of the West?

Look at Taiwan. An opposition party, free elections, an uncensored Internet – still the environment is one every Chinese would recognize and feel at home in. These necessary modern developments are not a threat to China or its culture. The only ones they might threaten are those who grab for themselves a bit too much of what belongs to all. To preserve their prerogative to do this, and pass this on to their children, though it be at the expense of their culture, their nation, their people, and even their Communist ideology – this tiny percentage of the population in the People’s Republic strives at all cost to cover up what it is doing. It’s dishonest to its own people. It does everything in its power to prevent embarrassing truths from reaching them from foreign sources.

This latest bundle of untruths – that the Chinese Internet is open, the United States uses the Internet to dominate the world, and Western insistence on an uncensored Internet amounts to “information imperialism” because less-developed nations like China cannot possibly compete when it comes to information flow – contains one very interesting admission that has curiously not received the attention it deserves. Lies cannot stand, they’re not convincing, unless bundled with truths. The truth in all these falsehoods is that to the extent China continues to shackle itself by dominating the flow of information to its people, then no matter what impressive external manifestations of progress and prosperity it manages to feather itself with, in substance it remains, in the most important respect, a less-developed country and one that can never catch up.

The Chinese government’s cyber attack on Google is telling. A system that is closed, controlled, and dominated by a small minority – which is not the most creative or innovative segment of the society – can only progress by stealing or grabbing what does not belong to it. China’s whole foreign policy seems to boil down to grabbing Taiwan and preventing any discussion of how it grabbed Tibet. It unconscionably befriends whatever unsavory regime it needs to in order to grab resources. It’s even intent on grabbing tiny little islands way out at sea from neighboring countries all around. China is already big enough. What it has of most value is already inside it – it’s people and their superior creative potential. It needs to grab nothing. It needs instead to release its people’s vast potential so that it can stop being wasted; and the world needs this too of China.

Nobody knows from what tiny point in China’s vast society its most creative and innovative element might spring. It can come from anywhere, so everywhere needs to be free. Who could have predicted, for example, that a particular little Jewish boy brought by his father from Communist Russia to America would grow up to drop out of Stanford and become the co-founder of Google. Sergey Brin was a wonder who came, like true creative innovation always does, out of the blue.

How different is Google’s view of information to that of the Chinese government. It’s not about domination at all – but freedom and empowerment of the disenfranchised and downtrodden. How ironic that a Communist regime views information as a means to dominate while Google, an American company, views it as a means to liberate. Things are not what they seem. The consensus that China, in its present form, is the future begins to look wrong. The future may actually be Google, or some combination of China and Google. The company has hit upon a new way to do business that’s not the tired old exploitative American capitalism, which fits in so well with Beijing’s schemes – but that’s not Communism either. Rather it falls somewhere in between. This business organization has found a way to earn money by benefiting the collective, and doing it in a way that enables and develops the creative vision of its employees. Google does business in a different way. There is no end of riches in the direction it’s taken and no end of business niches where its ideas can be replicated and further developed. More profit can be made by cultivating than by exploiting people and the planet. It’s that simple. Compare this to Chinese companies that put poison in toys and fake protein in baby formulas.

This venture that Google has started out on in the end can’t help but make China and the U.S. partners rather than adversaries. It behooves the Chinese government to rise to the occasion and let Google come through unfettered to the Chinese people. Whatever destabilizing effects this may have on China’s corrupt bosses will be offset a million times over by the deeper stabilization that can’t help but arise as thousands of Chinese Sergey Brins are empowered to surface from the most marginal and unlikely spots all over China’s vast map with innovations that make China’s glitzy prosperity and progress not just a surface phenomenon based on what has been grabbed, stolen, or diverted from the West – but a true manifestation of China’s underlying cultural greatness and the genius of its people.

* * *

______________

Richard Burger is the author of Behind the Red Door: Sex in China, an exploration of China's sexual revolution and its clash with traditional Chinese values.

The Discussion: 298 Comments

which are really just based on genocide, slavery and caste systems

Can you tell us for example how democracies in Sweden, Ireland, Iceland, Cape Verde, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Switzerland are “based on genocide, slavery and caste systems”?

March 3, 2010 @ 7:06 pm | Comment

simply not willing to blindly praise the CCP

More like not having a case on its own merits. Case closed.

March 3, 2010 @ 7:09 pm | Comment

Can you tell us for example how democracies in Sweden, Ireland, Iceland, Cape Verde, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Switzerland are “based on genocide, slavery and caste systems”?

Oh look at those huge, 1 billion+ population world powers. They traded with imperialist powers- that’s how. And in exchange, they were supported and protected by said imperialist powers.

Got it? Am I done teaching sp basic geopolitical sense? Or do you still need some lessons? Regardless Singapore is rated better on corruption indices than most of those areas. It’s wealthier, has a higher GDP than most, and it did all of that with next to no natural resources.

@S.K Cheung
And after all this time, you still can’t grasp the concept that democracy is more than just the US of A. You’re not exactly a quick study, are you?

You still can’t grasp that Canada is a vassal and protectorate of the US of A. You’re not exactly bright, are you?

@Mike Goldthorpe
America is not the only democracy…oh never mind. You’re like some religious fundy…

See above. You sound more like a nutter yourself.. DEMOCRACY! DEMOCRACY! HALLELUJAH!

March 4, 2010 @ 7:05 am | Comment

Oh look at those huge, 1 billion+ population world powers. They traded with imperialist powers- that’s how.

By logical extension, that includes… the People’s Republic of China. In fact, the PRC’s top trading partner is the most important “imperialist” power, the “evil” US of A.

http://www.uschina.org/statistics/tradetable.html

And in exchange, they were supported and protected by said imperialist powers.

Definitely. After all, China had seek the tacit approval of the Carter administration before its aggression against of Vietnam in 1979. Deng even toured around the “evil” US of A in a cowboy’s hat before he told Carter he wanted to teach Vietnam a “lesson”.

By Merp’s definition, the CCP’s system fits neatly as being “based on genocide, slavery and caste systems” because of its close friendship with the top imperialist power.

Nice one Merp!

March 4, 2010 @ 9:34 pm | Comment

DEMOCRACY! DEMOCRACY! HALLELUJAH!

Judging by such hysterical screams, what merp needs now is a straitjacket.

March 4, 2010 @ 9:37 pm | Comment

Singapore is rated better

In case you need geopolitical lessons, Singapore’s leaders have supported the US invasion of Iraq, consistently eager for the US to maintain its huge military presence in Asia-Pacific and Lee Kuan Yew was adamant that the US should not withdraw from Iraq. By your logic, Singapore looks more like a vassal and protectorate of the US than Canada. So does this fact therefore mean that Singapore’s authoritarian system is one that is “based on genocide, slavery and caste systems” too?

LKY, “the American presence, in my view, is essential to the continuation of law and order in East Asia.”

http://books.google.com.sg/books?id=p_wNzuH2nCoC&pg=PA132&lpg=PA132&dq=Lee+kuan+yew+AND+%22American+presence%22+AND+stability&source=bl&ots=RcAMyUNn4R&sig=_2yRCFg8kDtlAGuH2UneT69RlNw&hl=en&ei=0biPS-CTEY61rAfP4aiKCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CA0Q6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=Lee%20kuan%20yew%20AND%20%22American%20presence%22%20AND%20stability&f=false

Singapore backs war on Iraq, lets U.S. use military facilities
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0WDQ/is_2003_March_25/ai_99161077/

The Cost Of Retreat In Iraq– by LKY
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030702429.html

“Vice President Quayle and Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew signed a memorandum of understanding in Tokyo on 13 November 1990, permitting US use of facilities in Singapore. Singapore’s Paya Lebar airfield is used for short-term rotations by USAF aircraft. The US is not constructing a base in Singapore; rather, US forces make use of existing Singaporean facilities at Paya Lebar [and Sembawang Port]. This is one form of access which represents a new approach to maintaining US presence in the region. This new approach will consist of a network of bilateral arrangements that facilitate training, exercises and interoperability which, in lieu of permanent bases, will permit the US to remain engaged and forward deployed in Southeast Asia. ”

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/paya-lebar.htm

March 4, 2010 @ 9:54 pm | Comment

@sptwo
By logical extension, that includes… the People’s Republic of China. In fact, the PRC’s top trading partner is the most important “imperialist” power, the “evil” US of A.

The PRC’s top “trading partner” is the EU. Regardless, these are just revenues- most of the exports to the US are re-exports of goods imported from Japan and Korea. China gains very little from trade with the US, while US consumers and homeowners are dependent on China, Japan and oil exporting nations.

That’s not the point, anyway. Your claim that Sweden and Norway are good examples of democracy from the ground up are childish. They relied on trade with imperialist powers to get rich- democracy didn’t make them rich. The point is, they could have been dictatorships and they would still be relatively well-off. Like Taiwan or Chile.

By Merp’s definition, the CCP’s system fits neatly as being “based on genocide, slavery and caste systems” because of its close friendship with the top imperialist power.

Nice one Merp!

[Deleted by Richard – Merp, you can make your case without calling people names]- the PRC did not receive support or protection from America.

In case you need geopolitical lessons, Singapore’s leaders have supported the US invasion of Iraq, consistently eager for the US to maintain its huge military presence in Asia-Pacific and Lee Kuan Yew was adamant that the US should not withdraw from Iraq. By your logic, Singapore looks more like a vassal and protectorate of the US than Canada. So does this fact therefore mean that Singapore’s authoritarian system is one that is “based on genocide, slavery and caste systems” too?

Novice. Singapore’s gov’t might be a verbal shill for the U.S, but they are not a vassal. There’s a difference- Canada relies on the US for defense, political aid, trade. The US purchases Canada’s energy resources. Singapore is a shill for every major power almost- that isn’t criticism. They are just being realistic, if they can kiss up and gain favor in exchange for almost nothing or merely nominal concessions, they win.

Note how Singapore also kisses up to the PRC and Japan.

March 5, 2010 @ 8:14 am | Comment

China gains very little from trade with the US,

Who are you trying to kid really? Then impose trade embargo and sanctions on the US for receiving the DL and selling arms to Taiwan. Sell all your dollars and T-bills. Why not?

They relied on trade with imperialist powers to get rich

A whole lot of authoritarian states like Singapore and Indonesia under Suharto also relied on trade with the imperialist powers to get rich. So what’s the horseshit you are talking about?

On that note, Deng must be a stooge of the imperialist powers when he advocated his “Open Door” policy. Damn, why didn’t Mao kill this “capitalist roader” who eventually link up China with the imperial powers during the Cultural Revolution?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/in_depth/china_politics/key_people_events/html/8.stm

“Deng realised that China needed Western technology and investment, and opened the door to foreign businesses who wanted to set up in China.”

March 5, 2010 @ 12:08 pm | Comment

democracy didn’t make them rich.

When and where did anyone, except yourself, make the claim that “democracy make countries rich”?

Cite where i have said “democracy make countries rich”. You are truly in a world of your own.

Singapore’s gov’t might be a verbal shill for the U.S, but they are not a vassal

Hoho. You know which imperial power is Singapore’ largest arms supplier? You know which country provide the most logistical support to the US in Southeast Asia after the closure of Subic Bay Naval Base in the Philippines in 1992? No prize for guessing the right answer. You know Singapore in fact have a Five Power Defense Agreement with “imperial” powers like the UK, Australia and NZ?

The facts i provided speak for themselves. And your facts until now? Zilch.

March 5, 2010 @ 12:19 pm | Comment

if they can kiss up and gain favor in exchange for almost nothing or merely nominal concessions, they win.

They don’t just kiss. They deployed military forces to support the US in the Iraq war as part of George Bush’s infamous “coalition of the willing”.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/297334/1/.html

“RSS Persistence deployed to support Iraq’s reconstruction efforts”

It is interesting to see merp to trivializing one of his “favourite” countries’ deep involvement with the US “imperialists” in Iraq from diplomatic to military actions. Indeed, from merp’s logic, Singapore’s authoritarian system is based on “genocide, slavery and caste systems” just like those “damn” democracies in Canada and the UK.

March 5, 2010 @ 12:28 pm | Comment

the PRC did not receive support or protection from America.

Haha, if not, why would Deng go all the way to America just to tell Carter that he is going to teach Vietnam a “lesson”? He could have done it without telling the Americans, but why didn’t he?

March 5, 2010 @ 12:40 pm | Comment

To #253:
“You still can’t grasp that Canada is a vassal and protectorate of the US of A.”
—ummm, how exactly do you figure that, in the confines of your head? We have our own democracy that is completely different from the US (oh, that’s right, all you’ve seen is the US so you may not realize that). We are the US’s largest trading partner (and Americans actually pay us for our goods). So it seems like a mutually beneficial relationship. Sure, the US has 10 times more people. And of course we are not in the same league militarily. However, the point of the discussion is democracy. So what does Canada’s relationship with the US have to do with that? It seems that, every time I look, you throw up all these statements that have no relevance to the point at hand. You have an interesting “debating” style. Oh, and yet again, imitation is the highest form of flattery. You really need to start to show some originality, among other things.

You have yet to ask yourself, how many authoritarian regimes still exist in the world today? How many democracies exist? There seems to be a discrepancy, no? Why do you think that is? If authoritarian rule represents such nirvana, why do you think that people in democracies haven’t chosen to go that route themselves? You take your time.

March 5, 2010 @ 1:32 pm | Comment

To 257:
“democracy didn’t make them rich. The point is, they could have been dictatorships and they would still be relatively well-off.”
—ok, so you introduce this whole red herring about the relative wealth of different countries. Then you come right out and state that the form of governance has nothing to do with it (I agree with that, btw…China’s authoritarian but her economy since “opening up” is as capitalist as any other). So when the initial discussion is about democracy being a superior form of governance from the perspective of the people, what does economy have to do with that anyway? Nothing. If it’s nothing, why do you bring it up, when even you admit that democracy and economy can be true/true/unrelated.

I imagine most people in most countries want a good economy. They don’t look to democracy alone to provide that. But in any given economic state, it still might be nice to have people make decisions for themselves, rather than have some authoritarian “dad” make it for them.

March 5, 2010 @ 1:41 pm | Comment

@sptwo
Who are you trying to kid really? Then impose trade embargo and sanctions on the US for receiving the DL and selling arms to Taiwan. Sell all your dollars and T-bills. Why not?

Oh okay I’ll make a call and do just that. The reason is, genius, that very little is better than nothing. And few would appreciate it if China were to destroy America financially.

A whole lot of authoritarian states like Singapore and Indonesia under Suharto also relied on trade with the imperialist powers to get rich. So what’s the horseshit you are talking about?

So you concede the point- democracy is not necessary for development.

You know which imperial power is Singapore’ largest arms supplier?

That’s just business- what matters is who these arms are directed against. America sells arms to everyone- including rebels in Sudan.

You know which country provide the most logistical support to the US in Southeast Asia after the closure of Subic Bay Naval Base in the Philippines in 1992? No prize for guessing the right answer. You know Singapore in fact have a Five Power Defense Agreement with “imperial” powers like the UK, Australia and NZ?

To tone down hostility from Malaysia.

They don’t just kiss. They deployed military forces to support the US in the Iraq war as part of George Bush’s infamous “coalition of the willing”.

192 military personnel. Oh yes, what a huge commitment- sptwo is the chronic egomaniac, the type that the Singaporean elites would be able to manipulate to no end.

Haha, if not, why would Deng go all the way to America just to tell Carter that he is going to teach Vietnam a “lesson”? He could have done it without telling the Americans, but why didn’t he?

Haha because visiting a country is obviously proof of… what? The US didn’t help China at all during the Sino-Vietnamese war. Your arguments are idiotic. You’re desperately grasping at straws. You lost- get over it.

Well I guess the U.S did “attack” Vietnam in one way during that war- by directly causing the rise of Pol Pot through Operation Menu:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Menu

Here is the sum of your pathetic and laughable argument in the face of common sense-

Providing 192 personnel to a joke of a war is equivalent to being entirely under the sphere of influence of a nation, falling under their political ideology entirely, siding with them on every international conflict, relying on their missile shield, being subsidized (NOTE: this is different from an arms purchase, novice) by the patron nation’s military, etc.

Really now, I guess then Arabs and Romans were the vassals of Tang China too. Talk about delusional.

@SK
So what does Canada’s relationship with the US have to do with that?

You can afford to be weak because America owns you. You can afford your wealth because you have no military threats within thousands of miles- partly because Canadia so thoroughly exterminated the indigenous that they could not mount military or political action against her.

This is an OBVIOUS point. Stop pretending you don’t understand in an attempt to bog me down, in lieu of an actual argument.

You have yet to ask yourself, how many authoritarian regimes still exist in the world today? How many democracies exist? There seems to be a discrepancy, no? Why do you think that is? If authoritarian rule represents such nirvana, why do you think that people in democracies haven’t chosen to go that route themselves? You take your time.

If perfect, flawless, light-of-the-world democracy is so great and able to weather dissent, then why did you kill all your natives, who are natural political and racial enemies of the West?

Why don’t you allow them to be 90% of the population again, and we’ll see how the idea of Canada survives. Oh no, that wouldn’t be democratic! Because after all, European anchor babies and their shills and manservants (you) have discussed among yourselves and decided that you’re citizens of land you’re totally foreign to. Essentially dropping your nation over theirs. In that case I don’t see why illegal aliens can’t simply form their own nation out of Texas and California and then have the “democratic right” to oppress European anchor babies.

when the initial discussion is about democracy being a superior form of governance from the perspective of the people, what does economy have to do with that anyway? Nothing. If it’s nothing, why do you bring it up, when even you admit that democracy and economy can be true/true/unrelated.

Obviously because sptwo brought that up when the opportunity presented itself- after you continued to drag the discussion on based on your failure to grasp very simple concepts.

I can’t even remember what he was trying to refer to, but his arguments are at best utterly moronic, so I can’t be bothered to look for it. Maybe if he could write in an interesting style, instead of grasping at straws and vomiting barely related tangents, he wouldn’t be so forgettable- aside from his pathological obsession and rage.

My point is that authoritarianism creates a stronger country- at the expense of the people. I never said anything else, don’t look at my POV through the lens of sptwo’s aggressive delusions.

Democracy, however, is really not any better. It’s simply a circus for the mob. Democracy in the proper sense; not the dressed up version that is being marketed.

To be fair, the world’s current cabal of democracies thrives on creating an economic, political, cultural, etc pacts that profit from the victimization of “rogue states”. A form of amoral familialism on the international scale. That’s a credit to democracy, I guess, if you don’t mind the fact that the top power decides which countries are “bad” and coerces unilateral action against them.

But in any given economic state, it still might be nice to have people make decisions for themselves, rather than have some authoritarian “dad” make it for them.

“people make decisions for themselves”, you mean the central banks taking “the people’s” tax dollars and giving them to bankers without any stipulations. Yes, “the people” benefited, if you mean CEOs and execs.

March 6, 2010 @ 7:47 am | Comment

Oh okay I’ll make a call and do just that.

Means that after all you didn’t have the balls to do it? Case closed. Next.

So you concede the point- democracy is not necessary for development.

When did i say “democracy is necessary for development”? Cite where i have said this. Knocking down strawmen you have painstakingly constructed do give you a sense of satisfaction isn’t it?

That’s just business

Didn’t change the fact that Singapore relies on the US for arms supply and sophisticated arms to defend itself against its neighbours. Next.

To tone down hostility from Malaysia.

Didn’t change the fact that Singapore needed the “imperial” powers’ support to ensure its national security. Next.

192 military personnel.

Compare to countries which didn’t send any? For Singapore, which is a tiny city-state to do that is a sign of commitment. Japan, a staunch ally, only sent 600. From a proportional perspective, its 192/4.5million of the Singapore population. For Japan, its 600/100million of its population. Do some maths dude.

Haha because visiting a country is obviously proof of… what?

Deng was trying to get the “imperialist” power’s green light and get as much diplomatic cover as possible before he fires his first shot at the Vietnamese. Still evaded answering why Deng had to travel thousands of miles to Washington to discuss this with Carter. Next.

Anyway, if visiting a country is no big deal, then Taiwan’s president should visit the national capitals of all the countries as often as possible. It’s no big deal, a proof of nothing, right? Why Beijing makes big fuss over visits if they are proof of… what?

under the sphere of influence of a nation, falling under their political ideology entirely, siding with them on every international conflict, relying on their missile shield, being subsidized

Let’s go through your list:
1) under the sphere of influence of a nation- LKY argued time and again for the US to stay in his neighbourhood and frequently hosted their troops. Checked.

2)falling under their political ideology: Singapore is hardly democratic but Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar aren’t democratic either. So ideology wasn’t a criteria for being a US vassal. Checked.

3)siding with them on every international conflict: Supported invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan and even dispatched personnelover. Checked.

4)relying on their missile shield: Rely on ties to US, UK, Australia to survive in their tough neighbourhood. Checked.

5)being subsidized: How was Canada “subsidized”? Anyway, did i tell you Singapore has been given the privilege of using US bases for training purposes? Singapore’s small area doesn’t allow much training to be done.

directly causing the rise of Pol Pot through Operation Menu:

After that, China picked up the tab from the US and became Pol Pot’s genocidal regime most important ally. Oh, that’s why Deng went to war with Vietnam isn’t it?

The most pathetic ones are those who consistently find it fulfilling and liberating by knocking the very strawmen they have made. Geez, you have my condolences.

March 6, 2010 @ 11:57 am | Comment

To 264:
“You can afford to be weak because America owns you.”
—what does this have to do with your argument against democracy?

“Canadia so thoroughly exterminated the indigenous that they could not mount military or political action against her”
—I’ve said this before. What happened with aboriginal peoples 300-400 years ago was neither democratic nor undemocratic. They had land that initial North American settlers wanted. How this serves as any argument whatsoever against the concept of democracy is beyond human comprehension…but I guess it somehow makes sense to you.

“Stop pretending you don’t understand”
—I’m not pretending. I’m not sure what your “obvious” point is supposedly in support of, but it certainly isn’t in support of an argument against democracy.

“why did you kill all your natives, who are natural political and racial enemies of the West?”
—huh? Do you read what you write? Aboriginals are “racial” enemies of the west? They’re “political” enemies of the west? Jeez louise dude, give your head a shake. You keep harping on the aboriginal issue about which you have no clue.

“Why don’t you allow them to be 90% of the population again”
—okay, apart from turning back the clock 300 years, how might you propose this be done, Einstein? And once again, aboriginals were targeted back then not because they were a threat to democracy (heck, there was no USA or Canada back then, and no democracy to speak of). Your whole “argument” might go towards rebuking European settlers for colonizing the AMericas, but gets nowhere insofar as arguing against democracy is concerned. But what you lack in substance you make up for in effort, since you’re still beating on the same tired drum.

“decided that you’re citizens of land you’re totally foreign to.”
—no idea what you’re arguing here, but beyond the first generation of settlers who came from Europe, all subsequent generations were born here. So they’re not foreigners…although I suppose it depends on what bizarre definition you might employ for “foreigner”.

“I don’t see why illegal aliens can’t simply form their own nation out of Texas and California”
—not that it would ever happen, but even using your own example with aboriginals, these illegal aliens would have to vanquish the current residents first. Like I said, your “arguments” moved beyond ridiculous long ago, and are now pushing the outer limits of sublime. Not sure what lies beyond that, but I’m sure you’ll surprise me.

“My point is that authoritarianism creates a stronger country- at the expense of the people.”
—ok, so you’ve given up the “argument” that economy has anything to do with mode of governance. Good. So what defines a “stronger country”? And who consented to the genesis of this stronger country at the expense of the people? Like I said, if people got to choose, and they opted for a stronger country at their own expense, and they actually believed someone like you telling them that they needed authoritarianism to get that strong country which they seek, and wanted to go the authoritarian way en mass, that would be grand. Did PRC citizens get to make that choice (and spare me the bit about them choosing 60 years ago)? And I wonder why people in other countries haven’t made a similar “choice”.

“Democracy, however, is really not any better”
—you know what, at the worst that you can characterize, if people in a democracy chose to go the route of the mob, 51% is still better than 9 guys. Of course, every time you make silly references to “mob rule”, you ignore all the other aspects of society like rule of law and human rights which keeps tyranny of the majority in check. I suppose it helps your argument, but even then not very much.

“democracies thrives on creating an economic, political, cultural, etc pacts…”
—and this is bad how? This argues against democracy how? I’ve intentionally left out the second part of that statement…even I concede that some things aren’t even worth talking about with you. Of course, none of this relates in any way to why democracy would be bad for China. You have a curious habit of forgetting the central point of the discussion. But I’m happy to point it out to you over and over again.

“you mean the central banks…”
—nope, what i said was “economic state”, as in “good economy”, “mediocre economy”, or “lousy economy”, “people make decisions for themselves, rather than have some authoritarian “dad” make it for them.”
As for your tangent about central banks, I’m not positive about the US situation, but I’m reasonably certain it’s not Bernanke bailing out the banks; rather, it’s your elected representatives. Certainly in Canada, “bail-outs” and stimulus packages were orchestrated by government, and not the Bank of Canada. I realize you know nothing about anything beyond the US…just thought I’d let you know. But some of your characterizations about the American system which you rail against are…how should i say it delicately….misinformed.

March 6, 2010 @ 2:22 pm | Comment

You know, Merp., your harping on the US’s (because that is your homeland) treatment of their aboriginal people makes me think you would be in favour of Uyghur and Tibetan freedom.

But no – because the US (your homeland) suppressed their aboriginals good, China can do the same…

Am I right?

March 6, 2010 @ 5:05 pm | Comment

I can’t even remember what he was trying to refer to,

Haha, indeed, you have been arguing with the strawman arguments which nobody has ever said except yourself. Have fun talking to yourself.

March 7, 2010 @ 2:40 am | Comment

CCP democracy
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8549344.stm

March 7, 2010 @ 4:38 am | Comment

@Mike
You know, Merp., your harping on the US’s (because that is your homeland) treatment of their aboriginal people makes me think you would be in favour of Uyghur and Tibetan freedom.

Ideally “Tibet” would eventually gain more autonomy (including Amdo and Kham, which were annexed in the 1700s), but I wouldn’t care either if Inner Mongolia were returned to Mongolia and Manchuria recognized again as a separate entity.

That’d be a long time coming though- if it were to happen now, they’d just become lapdogs of the West and antagonize China.

However, the Uighur don’t have any right to any land in China at all. I’d say Uzbekistan is a good place for them.

@sptwo
2)falling under their political ideology: Singapore is hardly democratic but Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar aren’t democratic either. So ideology wasn’t a criteria for being a US vassal. Checked.

So you admit all the whining the US is doing now is about China possibly becoming a rival, and not anything else. Thanks. So you agree that democracy is also worthless and irrelevant. Good.

@S.K Cheung
what does this have to do with your argument against democracy?

…………

They had land that initial North American settlers wanted. How this serves as any argument whatsoever against the concept of democracy is beyond human comprehension…but I guess it somehow makes sense to you.

…………

Because the Native input on governance in Canada is, and always has been, rendered a non-issue by genocide. This is one way democracies “cheat”; by denying recognition to opposition groups by exterminating them or declaring them non-citizens. If Canada actually had to at least pay basic respect to the indigenous, they would be crippled politically and economically.

—okay, apart from turning back the clock 300 years, how might you propose this be done, Einstein? And once again, aboriginals were targeted back then not because they were a threat to democracy (heck, there was no USA or Canada back then, and no democracy to speak of). Your whole “argument” might go towards rebuking European settlers for colonizing the AMericas, but gets nowhere insofar as arguing against democracy is concerned. But what you lack in substance you make up for in effort, since you’re still beating on the same tired drum.

The point. is. obvious. Democracy, aside from being a failure, is aggressive towards outgroups and “non-citizens”. What gave European anchor babies the right to build their retarded democracy on the land of First Nations? In that case the CCP could pick its 200 million best friends, build a democracy on all parts of China, and consider everyone else a non-citizen. Goes to show how arbitrary democracy is, and how established powers take control by limiting the rights of their opponents.

no idea what you’re arguing here, but beyond the first generation of settlers who came from Europe, all subsequent generations were born here. So they’re not foreigners…although I suppose it depends on what bizarre definition you might employ for “foreigner”.

Being born on a piece of land doesn’t mean you have right of citizenship to the Natives. You are superimposing your laws and nation over their nation. More political shenanigans from democracies.

So what defines a “stronger country”? And who consented to the genesis of this stronger country at the expense of the people?

Who needs consent? Did Canada ask for “consent” when she killed 98% of the indigenous in order to gain access to raw materials and land? No.

A stronger country is, obviously, a stronger country. In other words, less likely to be killed off. I didn’t concede anything on the point of the economy- sptwo just came in rambling about nonsense, and compared Sweden to China. Then he mentioned Deng visiting the US as if that mean China received US patronage for all of its development. Utter nonsense.

All other things equal, and authoritarian government can protect the collective interests of the nation better. At the expense of people- individuals.

Like I said, if people got to choose

And like I said, “the people” are often just a faceless, unpredictable mob that is influenced by vested interests. They should absolutely not have the right to interfere in the personal lives of minority groups or usurp their nations, as is done in Canada and America.

51% is still better than 9 guys.

No, it’s not. It could be better or worse, it depends on who it is. It could be the dumbest 51 out of 100 people in the country.

you ignore all the other aspects of society like rule of law and human rights which keeps tyranny of the majority in check.

None of which are related to democracy. Look, you need to stop bringing this up in defense of democracy because it’s a sham. You say you don’t, but you keep doing it.

…even I concede that some things aren’t even worth talking about with you.

Because I’ll make you look stupid or ignorant? Don’t be so hard on yourself.

it’s your elected representatives.

Most of which are bought by lobbyists, of course this doesn’t count as “corruption” to democracy-lovers.

Certainly in Canada, “bail-outs” and stimulus packages were orchestrated by government,

I’ve already stated that Canada is small-fry. California has a bigger economy than Canada and is more relevant to the world. That’s why there aren’t parasites from all sorts of places setting up camp in Canada- you can have your delusion of perfect democracy only because America shields you in many ways.

March 7, 2010 @ 6:50 am | Comment

Furthermore, and I think it goes without saying (maybe not, judging by the intellectual level on this blog’s comment roll) that democracy just boils down to a breeding race when it involves separate ethnic groups, religions, castes, etc.

There is no reason why one First Nations vote should be canceled out by one anchor baby vote. That is a fundamental injustice- something people who are living it up at their expense will not appreciate.

March 7, 2010 @ 6:54 am | Comment

So you admit all the whining the US is doing now is about China possibly becoming a rival, and not anything else. Thanks. So you agree that democracy is also worthless and irrelevant. Good.

When has anyone here claim that the US is a true-blue, altruistic “democratic” Savior? They have supported crooks like Pol Pot and Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq together with China. Now we know why you are so bitter about democracy: You are one of those naive ones who believe that the US is indeed the Messianic do-good democracy goddess but you just realized that it is all a farce. We never had that “democratic” illusion about the US and that’s why we save ourselves from all the bitterness which you have engulfed yourself in right now.

Democracy is =/= to the US. Liberate yourself from the bitterness merp. At the rate which you wallow in self-pity and bitterness, you may suffer a stroke if you are not careful.

March 7, 2010 @ 12:26 pm | Comment

There is no reason why one First Nations vote should be canceled out by one anchor baby vote. That is a fundamental injustice.

There is no reason why one politburo vote should cancel out the voting rights of all 1.3 billion people’s voting rights. That is not only fundamental but also gross injustice in a gigantic scale.

March 7, 2010 @ 12:28 pm | Comment

“the people” are often just a faceless, unpredictable mob that is influenced by vested interests. They should absolutely not have the right to interfere in the personal lives of minority groups or usurp their nations, as is done in Canada and America.

The party cadres are often just faceless bureaucrats that is influenced by power and corruption. They should absolutely not have the right to interfere in the personal lives of minority groups or usurp their nations, as is done in Tibet and Xinjiang.

Most of which are bought by lobbyists, of course this doesn’t count as “corruption” to democracy-lovers.

Most party officials even buy and sell public offices like commodities. Of course this doesn’t count as “corruption” to CCP lovers, it is euphemistically called “guanxi”.

All other things equal, and authoritarian government can protect the collective interests of the nation better. At the expense of people- individuals.

Nope. Li Peng, Marcos, Mobutu, Mugabe, Suharto and many despots protect the collective interests of their cronies, relatives and the elite at the expense of people.

Then he mentioned Deng visiting the US as if that mean China received US patronage for all of its development.

Nope. Not for development. But for getting the green light and diplomatic cover from the imperialists to drop bombs and shell villages in some parts of Vietnam.

Because the Native input on governance in Canada is, and always has been, rendered a non-issue by genocide

I wonder how much Tibetan “input” are there in the Politburo meeting papers.

March 7, 2010 @ 12:46 pm | Comment

However, the Uighur don’t have any right to any land in China at all. I’d say Uzbekistan is a good place for them.

A perfect imitation of Ahmedinejad and Anette Lu, by courtesy of merp/ferin.

Iran Leader: ‘Move Jews To Germany’
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Sky-News-Archive/Article/200806413475953

Annette Lu again says emigration can help Aborigines

“Despite the anger from Aborigines, Vice President Annette Lu (呂秀蓮) yesterday reaffirmed her resolution to facilitate her policy of moving residents of mountainous areas to Central America to develop new careers.”
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2004/08/05/2003181772

Merp, the new darling of bigots!

March 7, 2010 @ 2:28 pm | Comment

To 270:
“Because the Native input on governance in Canada is, and always has been, rendered a non-issue by genocide.”
—once again, huh? Each aboriginal person has one (1) vote. Which is the same number any other citizen gets. So how has their input been “rendered a non-issue”? The only way your point makes any sense (and I’m using the concept of “making sense” very loosely here) is if you assume that aboriginal peoples can only exert their influence by voting as a racial bloc, regardless of their individual perspectives on any given issue. To which I’d have to ask why you would make that assumption.

“Democracy, aside from being a failure, is aggressive towards outgroups and “non-citizens””
—huh? What the heck is an “outgroup”? Are you making up words now? And when you say “non-citizen”, do you mean permanent legal resident of a country, citizens of another country, or what? And how is democracy “aggressive” towards whatever it is you’re talking about? Once again, more words from you which make little to no sense.

“What gave European anchor babies the right to build their retarded democracy on the land of First Nations?”
—like I said, you might use such a line of “argument” to rebuke Europeans for settling in North America in the first place. But it’s no argument against democracy. As for what gave them the right, you might view it as the result of any war…to the victor go the spoils. That, btw, is about the only plausible justification to me for China being in Tibet.

“consider everyone else a non-citizen.”
—so you’re suggesting that Chinese people who are not CCP members suddenly become non-citizens of China in order for your dream-world facade of the CCP being a democracy? Well, I must give you credit for being extremely creative. But creativity alone doesn’t make for much of an argument. I wonder how the average PRC person would feel about that. On the other hand, what they think/feel/want doesn’t matter to the CCP anyhow, so I guess nothing would have to change.

“This is one way democracies “cheat”; by denying recognition to opposition groups by exterminating them or declaring them non-citizens.”
—news flash (or perhaps historical review) on timelines. “war” with aboriginals was fought long before the north american nations came into existence, and longer still before they were democracies. So now you’re suggesting that we fought with aboriginals not to take their land, but only to rid them of their democratic rights in advance of the existence of said democracy? Well, like I said before, you’re “creative”; logical, not so much.

“how established powers take control by limiting the rights of their opponents.”
—that’s how the CCP does it…only in her case, she doesn’t even allow for the existence of opponents. Like I said, great system she’s got going.

“Being born on a piece of land doesn’t mean you have right of citizenship”
—like i said, I was expecting you to have a bizarre definition for “foreigner”.

“Who needs consent?”
—democracies do. But I understand that you can’t grasp that concept.

“Did Canada ask for “consent” when she killed 98% of the indigenous”
—no she didn’t. And how’s that an argument against democracy? I’ve asked this question and pointed out this fallacy many times already. You’re a little slow on the uptake. You might use your point (repeated ad nauseum) to argue that settlers were wrong to do what they did. That would be a different discussion. But I’m talking about democracy…and it seems like you’re not. I’m also talking about the CCP, and that you’re definitely not doing; seems you’d rather bring up all manner of other stuff than to face up to what the CCP does. Though that’s not to say that Merp would live there; heavens no, don’t expect Merp to do that.

“authoritarian government can protect the collective interests of the nation better. At the expense of people- individuals.”
—hey, no argument from me on the second point. At least you have the sanity to admit that part. As for the first part, could you remind me how many authoritarian nations still exist, as compared to democratic ones? This is one of those other questions that I’ve also asked before.

““the people” are often just a faceless, unpredictable mob that is influenced by vested interests.”
—you bet. Those “vested interests” are otherwise known as their own interests. Again, understandably a concept that might be foreign to a CCP buff like yourself.

“No, it’s not. It could be better or worse, it depends on who it is.”
—ok, so worse case in a democracy, it’s tyranny of the majority. Best case with the CCP is a tyranny of the extreme minority. That could still even possibly be conceivably better in the eyes of a sane individual? Are you kidding me? You are more deluded that I had imagined.

“Because I’ll make you look stupid or ignorant?”
—ummm, nope. It’s because I’m not qualified to explain certain concepts to wingnuts who have completely fallen off their rocker like you. That may require professional psychiatric training.

“this doesn’t count as “corruption” to democracy-lovers.”
—wrong again. Corruption is corruption, and absolutely does “count”. But if you want to talk about democracy purely as a principle, without overlaying some of the real world realities like laws and such, then corruption isn’t a factor either. Corruption is something that taints the application of democracy, but it doesn’t taint the principle of democracy itself. Similarly, China has all manner of corruption up the whazzoo. So corruption certainly isn’t unique to democracy, and doesn’t factor into the analysis of whether democracy is superior to an authoritarian system. I think democracy is far superior to authoritarianism, in China or anywhere else. But of course you want to have safeguards to minimize or rid the system of corruption. Looks like I’ve left your “point” in a steaming pulp.

“your delusion of perfect democracy”
—seriously man, have you made a conscious decision against reading, and have you simply opted to continually argue against that which no one has said? Democracy, even in an idealized application, is not perfect; it’s just far less imperfect than authoritarianism, from the perspective of the average citizen. Your argument in defense of authoritarianism makes perfect sense if you’re on the Politburo, or related to someone who is.

“democracy just boils down to a breeding race”
—and you objected to the Nazis?

March 7, 2010 @ 4:03 pm | Comment

“…they’d just become lapdogs of the West and antagonize China.”
Uh huh. The West….your place of choice to live in…

March 7, 2010 @ 4:19 pm | Comment

“Being born on a piece of land doesn’t mean you have right of citizenship…….”
Sieg Heil!
Merp…you hanging around them Montana dudes?
You and HX (you know…let’s kill 5000 Hong Kongers to really le them know where they stand sort of thing) really make CCP China seem like a paradise.
Of course, you being a Taiwaner….ahem, well, you know what happened to Quisling, don’t you 😉

March 7, 2010 @ 4:23 pm | Comment

@sptwo
They have supported crooks like Pol Pot and Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq

sptwo! I’m thrilled. Good, good, you are making progress. You are finally developing from a little brainwashed drone and shill of the West into a real person.

There is no reason why one politburo vote should cancel out the voting rights of all 1.3 billion people’s voting rights. That is not only fundamental but also gross injustice in a gigantic scale.

Quite possibly. But who voted on the Iraq War?

The party cadres are often just faceless bureaucrats that is influenced by power and corruption. They should absolutely not have the right to interfere in the personal lives of minority groups or usurp their nations, as is done in Tibet and Xinjiang.

Tu quoque! And Xinjiang does not belong to the Uighur, and never has. If anything, the Tibetans would be next in line to inherit it. Tibetan Empire, lo!

Nope. Li Peng, Marcos, Mobutu, Mugabe, Suharto and many despots protect the collective interests of their cronies, relatives and the elite at the expense of people.

Marcos, Mobutu, Suharto, the American dream team. These don’t count- they acted as cronies of the U.S. Democracy is rotten to the core.

A perfect imitation of Ahmedinejad and Anette Lu, by courtesy of merp/ferin.

Oh wow lol, did Annette Lu really say that? The DPP is even more depraved than I thought. I guess Michael Turton approves.

March 8, 2010 @ 8:42 am | Comment

@sptwo
Each aboriginal person has one (1) vote.

So I guess I can move into your house, kill your family, and then me and my 100 best friends can vote on how we use up your food, energy and water. Great system.

To which I’d have to ask why you would make that assumption.

… then when you complain, I’d tell you you’re a bigot. “Why do you hate us?!” Isn’t it fucking obvious? The Natives that have a will to survive want you out. They never voted on your accession to citizenship on their land. Your current system is built on a fundamentally non-democratic premise.

What the heck is an “outgroup”?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outgroup_%28sociology%29

And when you say “non-citizen”, do you mean permanent legal resident of a country, citizens of another country, or what?

Blacks. Women. Natives. Non-whites in general. Slaves. Serfs. Poor men. These were all considered non-citizens or ineligible to vote in the glorious history of democracy. Funny, considering you are the real foreigners.

And how is democracy “aggressive” towards whatever it is you’re talking about? Once again, more words from you which make little to no sense.

Because the big dogs just manufacture consensus and coerce unilateral action. They need an excuse to invade another nation so they hype them up as some kind of international supervillian- Philippines, Vietnam, Iraq, and perhaps Iran next.

But it’s no argument against democracy.

It is. It undermines your notion that developing democracies have a historical precedent aside from classical Athens and modern India.

so you’re suggesting that Chinese people who are not CCP members suddenly become non-citizens of China in order for your dream-world facade of the CCP being a democracy?

No, it just applies to the historical narrative of Canada and America, lol. These great nations you keep talking about. You act like you’re standing for your ideals by living in democracies that are built on mass murder, well…

So now you’re suggesting that we fought with aboriginals not to take their land, but only to rid them of their democratic rights in advance of the existence of said democracy?

Political power is just one form of power, you took their land and resources and burned down their homes to disenfranchise them and enrich yourselves. You swarm them demographically now in a continuation of that policy.

that’s how the CCP does it…only in her case, she doesn’t even allow for the existence of opponents. Like I said, great system she’s got going.

Or they could just kill anyone suspected to oppose them in the future, just like how US-led death squads (SAVAK, Ton Ton Macoute) butchered “Communist babies” and women in their bid to support the “free states” against the Soviets.

And how’s that an argument against democracy? I’ve asked this question and pointed out this fallacy many times already. You’re a little slow on the uptake.

I might have been a little slow in understanding the depth of your mental illness, but other than that I wouldn’t agree. Democracy goes with the will of the mob against the obvious “right” thing to do, when it comes to majority interests pitted against minorities. That’s how it factors in- the Native Americans want you out. White anchor babies vote them down. You seem to think the mob thinking of an arbitrarily defined “citizenry” should overrule common sense, morality and ethics. That’s your problem- you seem to only think in numbers and have no historical knowledge whatsoever.

could you remind me how many authoritarian nations still exist, as compared to democratic ones? This is one of those other questions that I’ve also asked before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index

50, apparently. Only 30 full democracies- most of which are sucking at America’s teat. Not that Americans can be truly called democratic, as international unilateralism is their main game. And they have overthrown countless democracies- Chilean, Iranian, Congolese- or worked to undermine them.

Those “vested interests” are otherwise known as their own interests

Hahahahahahahaha

oh wow, because policy favoring oil companies, big banks and the health insurance mob definitely benefit the people. Thanks for the laugh.

That could still even possibly be conceivably better in the eyes of a sane individual? Are you kidding me? You are more deluded that I had imagined.

Because the 9 could be a significant cut above the lowest 51%. It’s a toss-up, calculator boy.

without overlaying some of the real world realities like laws and such

I’ve explained this to you over and over and over- “real world realities like laws and such” do not come with the package you’re trying to hawk.

Corruption is something that taints the application of democracy, but it doesn’t taint the principle of democracy itself.

Corruption is something that taints the application of fascism, but it doesn’t taint the principle of fascism itself.

Corruption is something that taints the application of class struggle, but it doesn’t taint the principle of class struggle itself.

Corruption is something that taints the application of Catholicism, but it doesn’t taint the principle of Catholicism itself.

Corruption is something that taints the application of socialism, but it doesn’t taint the principle of socialism itself.

So corruption certainly isn’t unique to democracy

It isn’t. Your claim that democracy fights corruption is thus tossed out the window.

and you objected to the Nazis?

Yes. Using demographics as a tool for subjugation is fundamentally immoral. If Tibetans want to have an independent land free of all foreigners, especially whites and Indians, that is their right. If the Navajo wish the same, it should also be their right. You seem to think any random asshole should be able to break in or jump borders wherever he pleases and then interfere in the personal lives of his victims.

You are more of a Nazi than me I’d say, with your deranged concept of “democratic lebensraum” where white people are rubber stamped into the privilege of going wherever they want at the expense of the indigenous. Think about your delusions for a moment.

March 8, 2010 @ 9:04 am | Comment

So I guess I can move into your house, kill your family, and then me and my 100 best friends can vote on how we use up your food, energy and water. Great system.

Oh I forgot the best part, we can then say we’re sorry and act like we’re a moral paragon to the rest of the world, and force this very same system onto other “regimes” we don’t like.

But in reality it will just a repetition of the old atrocity.

March 8, 2010 @ 9:06 am | Comment

Marcos, Mobutu, Suharto, the American dream team. These don’t count- they acted as cronies of the U.S. Democracy is rotten to the core.

I can see you are so afraid that you avoid mentioning Li Peng. How about Kim Jong Il, Rakosi, Ceausescu, Brezhnev, Chen Xitong, Chen Liangyu, Hoxha. They are the Commie dream team too.

Pol Pot and Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq: China has danced with the cronies of US democracy too!

March 8, 2010 @ 1:10 pm | Comment

To #280:
“Each aboriginal person has one (1) vote.

So I guess I can move into your house,…”
—yet again, huh? How does your statement serve as a response to your excerpt of what I had written? For the umpteenth time, all the stuff you alluded to occurred before there was a democracy. Your rewarmed point has no bearing on the benefits of democracy. And speaking of China (since you seem allergic to the concept), there’s no need for Chinese to kill one another in order for democracy to be established. Of course that might not be what the CCP had in mind. And this leads me to wonder, since you seem rather dense: do you actually comprehend what you read?

“The Natives that have a will to survive want you out.”
—I would dearly like to know how you came by such knowledge. I suspect your answer will make me laugh.

“Your current system is built on a fundamentally non-democratic premise.”
—that’s true. No one said that a war that ends with the spoils going to the victor is democratic. I’ve already stipulated that (if only you could read). If you want to say that two sides waging war is undemocratic, I’d go along with that. How does something that is undemocratic weaken the premise of democracy? This I’d love to hear.

“Blacks. Women. Natives. Non-whites in general. Slaves. Serfs. Poor men. These were all considered non-citizens or ineligible to vote in the glorious history of democracy.”
—I already agreed long ago that US/Canada weren’t democracies to me until all those groups received the right to vote. Do you have anything to say, or are you now rehashing points by ignoring what I had previously stipulated? Is this the habit that comes after you tire of your prior penchant for arguing against stuff you wished I had said?

“Because the big dogs just manufacture consensus ”
—if you’re going to borrow from Chomsky, you should attribute credit where it is due.

“It undermines your notion that developing democracies have a historical precedent”
—when did I presume such a notion? Are you returning to your initial habit again? Like I said, I wish for China to become a democracy in a fashion as seen fit by Chinese people. For a nation of 1.3 billion to escape from the clutches of authoritarian rule, there is no precedent. So why bother looking for one?

“the historical narrative of Canada and America”
—gosh you have a deficit of attention. That history to which you love to refer involved wars between groups, so for your bizarre example to have any merit, the CCP would have to wage war on the 1 billion non-CCP Chinese citizens. Well, the CCP does have a pretty self-serving system going, so you are probably right that they would kill to hang on to it. If there’s one thing you can count on with the CCP or any authoritarian system, it’s that they like to retain power by any and all means possible. Once again, that’s a great system that you preach.

“You act like you’re standing for your ideals by living in democracies that are built on mass murder”
—news flash: there are democracies that exist outside of North America. Were you aware that there are land masses beside North America, China, and the Indian subcontinent?

“to disenfranchise them”
—yet again, how do you disenfranchise them when a democratic state was yet to exist? So many questions; so few answers from you.

“they could just kill anyone suspected to oppose them in the future”
—yet another terrific argument for how an authoritarian system is wonderful for the people. You have such terrific ideas, you should think about succeeding Hu Jintao.

“the Native Americans want you out.”
—in 2010? Apart from the voices in your head, you know this how? See above.

And (again for the umpteenth time) how is any of this an argument against the concept of democracy for China? If Chinese people disapprove of how European settlers took land from the aboriginals, then they shouldn’t do that in the course of forming a democracy in China. But wait, China is already there. So there’s no one to invade or vanquish. None of this aboriginal stuff has any bearing. It’s the same population of people, on the same mass of land, choosing to govern themselves differently, without the CCP’s fatherly oversight. So, what’s your point again?

“Only 30 full democracies”
—and how many “full” authoritarian states have you got? I wonder how many of those “full democracies” will soon be choosing to go the authoritarian route cuz it seems like such a cozy system. And I wonder if the people of how many authoritarian states would rather live under a democratic system. Just wondering…

“Because the 9 could be a significant cut above the lowest 51%”
—sure, they could be. Just like pigs “could” fly. But I’d say that’s rather unlikely. IF you can’t grasp the concept of odds…well, I can’t possibly teach you everything.

““real world realities like laws and such” do not come with the package you’re trying to hawk.”
—as evidenced by CCP, they most certainly do not come with an authoritarian system, even in the real world. Unfortunately, the CCP is sadly real. But in the real world, democracy does come with laws. Too bad you don’t realize that you live in such a world, even as you continue to live in it.

“Corruption is something that taints the application of democracy, but it doesn’t taint the principle of democracy itself.”
—all your subsequent copycat statements are also permissible. If you want to argue for or against facism, class struggle, religion, or socialism, corruption isn’t the determinant of whether those are good or bad things. This explains why I already said this (“Similarly, China has all manner of corruption up the whazzoo. So corruption certainly isn’t unique to democracy, and doesn’t factor into the analysis of whether democracy is superior to an authoritarian system. I think democracy is far superior to authoritarianism, in China or anywhere else.”). It sure says something when my a priori statements serve to rebut your future “arguments”.

“Your claim that democracy fights corruption is thus tossed out the window.”
—can you not read? See above. Here it is in a nutshell, for a certifiable nut: there’s corruption in democracy and in the CCP. So corruption isn’t going to help you differentiate which one is better.

“If Tibetans want to have an independent land free of all foreigners, especially whites and Indians, that is their right.”
—one of the few logical things you’ve ever said.

“where white people are rubber stamped into the privilege of going wherever they want”
—democracy isn’t about white people vs non-white people. You need to seek help with those racial complexes you carry around.

March 8, 2010 @ 3:26 pm | Comment

@SK Cheung
yet again, huh? How does your statement serve as a response to your excerpt of what I had written? For the umpteenth time, all the stuff you alluded to occurred before there was a democracy.

Yes because the land Canada is built on isn’t crucial to the existence of Canada. Wow, brilliant!

I would dearly like to know how you came by such knowledge. I suspect your answer will make me laugh.

Oh yes because we all know everyone loves foreign invaders.

If you want to say that two sides waging war is undemocratic, I’d go along with that. How does something that is undemocratic weaken the premise of democracy? This I’d love to hear.

Two sides waging a war? If some stranger busts into your house and shoots you in the face without provocation, that’s a war? No, it’s murder- and Canada committed genocide. Without this genocide, there would be no Canada, democratic or not. People have a fundamental right to their homes- they should never be rendered as 2% minority stakeholders of their own land just because outsiders and invaders delude themselves into thinking they have a democratic right to the other 98%.

I already agreed long ago that US/Canada weren’t democracies to me until all those groups received the right to vote. Do you have anything to say, or are you now rehashing points by ignoring what I had previously stipulated? Is this the habit that comes after you tire of your prior penchant for arguing against stuff you wished I had said?

So then why do you consistently ignore the fact that 1) Canada was not built on democracy so the fact that you “vote with your feet” doesn’t mean shit and 2) Democracy for developing nations has real no precedent applicable to China

if you’re going to borrow from Chomsky, you should attribute credit where it is due.

And if you’re going to parrot American MSM, you should give credit where it is due.

when did I presume such a notion? Are you returning to your initial habit again? Like I said, I wish for China to become a democracy in a fashion as seen fit by Chinese people.

The people… the people… the people the people… the people… the people… the people… the people… the people… the people… the people… the people… the people… the people… the people… the people… the people… the people… the people… the people… the people… the people… the people… the people… the people… the people… the people… the people… the people… the people… the people… the people… the people… the people…

No, 51% is not “the people”.

CCP or any authoritarian system, it’s that they like to retain power by any and all means possible. Once again, that’s a great system that you preach.

Clearly because established powers don’t exist in any other nation.

news flash: there are democracies that exist outside of North America. Were you aware that there are land masses beside North America, China, and the Indian subcontinent?

Oh yes, like Germany and Switzerland. Hmm any mass murder there? I kinda get the feeling there was some kinda conflict there maybe a few decades ago, but perhaps I’m just dreaming.

Oh but there’s Luxembourg, almost exactly like China.

yet again, how do you disenfranchise them when a democratic state was yet to exist? So many questions; so few answers from you.

Yes because obviously breaking treaties and having no political will for redress don’t affect the Natives at all.

yet another terrific argument for how an authoritarian system is wonderful for the people. You have such terrific ideas, you should think about succeeding Hu Jintao.

Actually if you go by history that fits the description of America and Canada.

So, what’s your point again?

My point is that democracy is shit. Your argument against this point is OH HO HO HO, CANADA IS SO GREAT, I VOTE WITH FEET, SUCH AND SUCH. CCP BAD, BECAUSE IT NOT DEMOCRACY!

Well guess what, Canada wasn’t built on democracy either. So you either find a precedent that isn’t Liechtenstein or you concede the point. Then you’re left with this: hey, 100 million idiots is better than 100 normal people! Mathematically speaking, even though mathematics doesn’t really apply in most circumstances to governance and human behavior.

I wonder how many of those “full democracies” will soon be choosing to go the authoritarian route cuz it seems like such a cozy system.

Obviously they will not, because no one will ever give up their personal power no matter what. Even though they don’t deserve to have a vote, European anchor babies in the Americas will still use them. They’re just as tenacious as the CCP, but they’re worse policymakers and indeed the politburo is probably more intelligent and capable than 90% of Americans and Canadians.

sure, they could be. Just like pigs “could” fly. But I’d say that’s rather unlikely. IF you can’t grasp the concept of odds…well, I can’t possibly teach you everything.

Clearly because everyone is equally capable of everything, lets ignore factors like expertise and reality. That will automatically create a perfect world. Did I miss anything?

But in the real world, democracy does come with laws.

No it doesn’t. Democracy just means citizens vote or vote in representatives- it has nothing to do with rule of law. Singapore has better rule of law than 27 out of 30 so-called full democracies, and is a “hybrid regime”.

If you want to argue for or against facism, class struggle, religion, or socialism, corruption isn’t the determinant of whether those are good or bad things.

The point is your hyperbole has been used by loonies all throughout history. You’re going to have to substantiate your arguments with more than just gibberish about how it’s mathematically sound to assume a huge mob is somehow magically intelligent when on an individual basis they’re generally morons.

there’s corruption in democracy and in the CCP. So corruption isn’t going to help you differentiate which one is better.

Oh okay then we’ll go by how many rainbows are present in the sky over democracies vs. non-democracies, because so far you have gone 200 posts without substantiating one single claim. Aside from spewing your “the people” nonsense, which has already been crushed repeatedly.

democracy isn’t about white people vs non-white people. You need to seek help with those racial complexes you carry around.

Riiight. Because clearly Americans and British people have not been using this democracy nonsense as a pretext to illegal wars, while simultaneously supporting dictatorships and toppling true democracies. It looks like you’re thoroughly brainwashed.

Your main claims
1) Democracy is great because obviously mobs are rational and intelligent entities that have a better decision-making track record than small circles of experienced policy-makers. Sure, I guess I’m willing to entertain this, if you can think of anything (though your knowledge of history appears to stretch all the way back to 2009). It flies in the face of years of study in the fields of psychology and sociology, but whatever.

2) Democracy is great because this one democracy I’m living in is cool even though it was fundamentally non-democratic when its power was seriously threatened. It now exists solely as a minor vassal state to the world’s premier power, a power whose fundamental tenet of foreign policy involves extensive agitprop designed to give it “authority” as the “leader of the free world” (read: democratic nations).

You’ve agreed that America is horribly corrupt, un-democratic, tyrannical, supports dictators, run by lobbyists and interest groups, belligerent and unilateralist. You’re forgetting the fact that America more or less handles defense and shows favoritism to other “democracies” (as long as they don’t vote for anti-Western candidates) via military pacts and preferential trade policies.

China, if democratic, will not receive any of this. Nor will law suddenly be enforced- there is a fundamental flaw with the legal system and it needs a lot of work whether it is applied in the context of a new democracy or the current system.

Corruption will linger as long as poverty does, most likely, and checks and balances are not guaranteed to be immediately effective.

The nation will just be destabilized.

March 9, 2010 @ 12:00 am | Comment

Singapore has better rule of law than 27 out of 30 so-called full democracies, and is a “hybrid regime”.

But do you realize, after reading the entire Transparency International corruption ranking, that Singapore, sadly, is perhaps ONLY the non-democratic regime in the top ten of that ranking? Since this list was complied in 1995, no nondemocratic regimes have joined Singapore in the top ten ranking.

March 9, 2010 @ 2:15 pm | Comment

To 284:
“Yes because the land Canada is built on isn’t crucial to the existence of Canada.”
—it’s like I’m speaking to a person who cannot hear, and writing to a person who cannot read. Perhaps it’s both. Yes, the land is necessary. Yes, the land was gotten in an undemocratic fashion (that’s what war is). Haven’t we gone over this several times? You are slower than molasses running uphill. But democracy as a concept in Canada starts after the land was already won, and in fact quite some time after, since I’ve long stipulated that there was no democracy until full voting rights were conferred to everyone. So why do you keep trying to evaluate democracy as a concept on the situation that predates the formation of said democracy? Oh, that’s right, because it might seem convenient for you, never mind that it suffers from a dearth of logic. Furthermore, how this applies to China is anyone’s guess. And I’ve been pointing this out for a number of days, yet here we still are.

“we all know everyone loves foreign invaders.”
—it’s 2010; not 1610. Time to re-calibrate your watch.

“If some stranger busts into your house and shoots you in the face without provocation, that’s a war?”
—you might say the same about China in Tibet. And that happened within the current lifetime for many people, and not generations ago.

“Without this genocide, there would be no Canada, democratic or not.”
—listen, how many times do you have to rehash the same point and get shot down in the same way before the lightbulb starts to flicker in your head. We’re talking about democracy. Your whole line of “argument” has nothing to do with it. If you use your line of argument to suggest that the right thing to do is for everyone not of aboriginal descent to immediately vacate the Americas, that might actually make one or two atoms more sense than to use it as an argument against democracy. However, that then extends to Australia, New Zealand, the South Pacific islands, Taiwan, Japan, much of Africa, depending on how far back in time you want to go to define aboriginal. Regardless of that, it still has nothing to do with democracy, or with the prospects of democracy in China. You must enjoy carousels, since you’re fond of going around and around in circles.

“Canada was not built on democracy”
—because, all of what I’ve said to this point notwithstanding, I’m talking about China, not Canada. Who knows what you’re talking about…oh, that’s right, anything but China.

“Democracy for developing nations has real no precedent applicable to China”
—once again, let’s review the tape and see what I said yesterday: (“For a nation of 1.3 billion to escape from the clutches of authoritarian rule, there is no precedent. So why bother looking for one?”). If nothing else, are you not capable of the common courtesy of reading before speaking/writing? And that’s at least the second time in 2 days.

“if you’re going to parrot American MSM,”
—good grief, that stoops to a pathetically low level. But you don’t cease to amaze me. So are you at least going to acknowledge that you’re liberally borrowing from Chomsky?

“The people… ”
—that’s a good start. You really can’t say that enough. Too bad the CCP doesn’t care so much about them, and only about herself. After you repeat that phrase for a while, you might then ask yourself “I wonder what the people would want”. Repeat as required in order for the concept to sink in.

“Oh yes, like Germany and Switzerland.”
—you seem to be forgetting the rest of Europe, for starters. My, you sure have selective comprehension…to go along with selective reading.

“don’t affect the Natives at all.”
—the discussion isn’t about affecting or not affecting “Natives”; it’s about democracy and how it’s superior to the CCP from the perspective of people in China. Isn’t there professional help you can seek for your attention deficit?

“CCP BAD, BECAUSE IT NOT DEMOCRACY!”
—absolutely. And once again (gosh I’m a nice person, so I’ll say it yet again) Canada has nothing to do with it.

“Canada wasn’t built on democracy either.”
—is there an echo in here? Are you a broken MP3 player stuck on repeat? See above in this comment, and you might as well see all the comments I’ve made to you to date. Is anybody home? While you’re fixing your flash memory, you might want to upload a program for mathematics, or perhaps statistics. It’d do you some good.

“because no one will ever give up their personal power no matter what”
—funny you should say this. I agree. And thanks to the CCP in China, CHinese people don’t have to worry about grappling with such a problem. Ok, all together now….”thanks, Dad!”

“politburo is probably more intelligent and capable than 90% of Americans and Canadians.”
—which is hardly the point. Thankfully, the politburo means nothing to us. I wonder if the politburo is smarter than 90% of Chinese people? And before you answer that, you can also ask yourself how you make that determination. While you decipher that conundrum, maybe I’ll go back and tabulate how many times you’ve raised completely irrelevant points in a discussion about democracy in China. btw, did you realize that’s what we’re discussing? Cuz it doesn’t look like it.

“lets ignore factors like expertise”
—when did I say this? What I said, many times, is who gets to determine what expertise is desired, and who possesses such expertise. I say it should be the people. You seem to say things with no accounting for what’s transpired in a discussion up to that point. You’re like Groundhog Day (the movie).

“Democracy just means citizens vote or vote in representatives- it has nothing to do with rule of law.”
—we’re talking about “real world”. Have you seen it?

“The point is your hyperbole…”
—huh? Do me a favour. Could you respond to a point with something that is actually responsive? All I said is that corruption is not a good metric for determining whether democracy is good/bad, or whether authoritarianism is good/bad. Your response to that is that it’s “hyperbole”? Good one. I’d sure pick you if I was picking for a debate team…

“you have gone 200 posts without substantiating one single claim.”
—and what have you done lately? You don’t even have the stones to talk about China, much less live there, even though it sounds to you like nirvana. You’d rather talk about the failings of US, but, oh, it’s okay for you to live there.

“Because clearly Americans and British people…”
—you might start by looking around your neighbourhood and seeing what type of ethnic diversity exists. And it might also be time to stop harping so much about race and colour. You might want to spend some more time instead on your logic, and math.

I’d tell you that your summary of “my main claims” is…how do I put this…quite inaccurate. But you knew that already, since you’ve shown time and again that misrepresenting what others say in order to argue against it is you MO.
Democracy is great because it allows the people to make decisions concerning how they themselves will be governed. Is it perfect? Of course not. Are people fallable and make mistakes? Certainly. But democracy also allows for people to correct their mistakes, in due course. Your favourite (and only) example of where people really made a huge mistake started because of what democracy allowed, but was perpetuated by the subsequent loss of democracy. And yes, people should employ “experts” to do the work that they themselves are unable to do. But the people, as the employer, should decide which experts they will employ. And if the “expert” doesn’t pan out, the people/employer should be able to select replacements. These are good things, provided for in a democratic system, but not currently available in China.
There’s no reason why people in China should be barred from availing themselves to democracy. If and when they do, the manner with which democracy manifests itself as a model of governance need not resemble that of any other. In fact, to presume otherwise already detracts from the democratic rights of Chinese people. I would rather leave it to Chinese people to determine how best to apply democratic rights for themselves, instead of presuming on their behalf.

If you’ll notice, my points relate to the concept of democracy. There is no need to mention Canada, for it’s irrelevant. And since I don’t suggest superimposing Canada’s system onto China, any comparison is also pointless (which aptly sums up much of what you’ve been doing with the whole “aboriginal peoples” charade). Besides, as I’ve also pointed out previously (though I’m sure you didn’t notice because you can’t seem to read), China already exists, and introducing democracy to her people simply requires their will; any discussion of invasion or conquest is yet again irrelevant, which sums up your repeated contribution to the discussion.

“You’ve agreed that America is horribly corrupt, un-democratic, tyrannical, supports dictators, run by lobbyists and interest groups, belligerent and unilateralist.”
—unless there is an alternate explanation, I’ll again assume that this came from the voices in your head.

“there is a fundamental flaw with the legal system and it needs a lot of work whether it is applied in the context of a new democracy or the current system.”
—and then, like a lightning bolt from the sky, you say the occasional thing that makes sense. This statement I agree with, and have said so in the past.

March 9, 2010 @ 2:15 pm | Comment

small circles of experienced policy-makers

Do you include Mao and the Gang of Four as “small circles of experienced policy-makers” too?

mobs are rational and intelligent entities

I only know that my vote is as equal as someone else’s. The point about me having the right to the polling station, without any fear, to express my preference. If my prefer candidate wins, good. If not, i accept that is what the majority of my fellow voters wanted. What is so evil and wrong about that?

March 9, 2010 @ 2:29 pm | Comment

Corruption will linger as long as poverty does

What about Costa Rica? or Mauritius? How come they are less corrupt than China?

No, 51% is not “the people”.

The bigger problem is when the autocrats and power elites refuse to accept the outcome of the 51% and reacted with violence. Remember that fateful 1990 election in Burma where Aung San Suu Kyi had won?

March 9, 2010 @ 2:40 pm | Comment

To SP2,
speaking about going to vote without fear, Iraqis had an election yesterday, replete with bombings of polling stations and at least 38 killed. There must be something in the new-found sense of democracy and the existence of democratic rights that augments the courage of the people. By contrast, it saddens me to see the complacency of voters in the US and Canada, who, for reasons unknown, make the legitimate but disappointing choice of forgoing their right to vote.

As Merp reads this, he is probably realizing for the first time that, oh, that’s right, the majority isn’t 51% of the voters, it’s merely 51% of the votes, and those aren’t even the same thing. This will probably initiate another barrage of illogical and irrelevant comments about the US/Canadian system.

March 9, 2010 @ 2:42 pm | Comment

SKC
He’s a fundy. Have you ever tried arguing with a religious kook? Trust me, it’s the same.

He lives in the US by choice and loves how he lives but hates the fact that it jars with his conceptions. Same with the fundy – they live and love all the trappings of modern life yet hate the thought that the Bible had nothing to do with them.
It’s the same shit, just a different package.

March 9, 2010 @ 2:45 pm | Comment

@sptwo

Since this list was complied in 1995, no nondemocratic regimes have joined Singapore in the top ten ranking.

Many of them have been pressured or guided by the US into democracy, while many democracies have been overthrown by the US as well.

The bigger problem is when the autocrats and power elites refuse to accept the outcome of the 51% and reacted with violence. Remember that fateful 1990 election in Burma where Aung San Suu Kyi had won?

What do you call America’s overthrow/assassinations of Mossadegh, Lumumba and Allende then? I don’t see how this is strictly a CCP issue.

@S.K
Furthermore, how this applies to China is anyone’s guess

It applies because democracy is unable to correct the worst human rights violation in history. It doesn’t lower corruption, doesn’t create economic growth, doesn’t provide basic sanitation or nutrition so you’re going to have to use a different angle.

it’s 2010; not 1610. Time to re-calibrate your watch.

And they still hate you.

you might say the same about China in Tibet. And that happened within the current lifetime for many people, and not generations ago.

Except the Tibetans have literally been dependent on China since the 1600s for defense and subsidies, and there was next to no armed resistance to the “invasion”.

So are you at least going to acknowledge that you’re liberally borrowing from Chomsky?

No? Are you going to admit to parroting American MSM?

Too bad the CCP doesn’t care so much about them, and only about herself.

How do you explain them lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty then in the past few decades then? Creating the fastest economic growth in human history? Motivated by corruption and personal gain? Corruption in the CCP is no worse than in India, America, Russia, Brazil, etc etc. Unless you want to count the multi-trillion dollar Iraq War as something transparent.

you seem to be forgetting the rest of Europe, for starters. My, you sure have selective comprehension…to go along with selective reading.

Oh yes, Luxembourg and Liechtenstein. Or Sweden and Norway.

it’s about democracy and how it’s superior to the CCP from the perspective of people in China.

You have yet to offer anything in support of your argument. And again, it’s pretty obvious- you’re just slow and have terrible reading comprehension. Please tell me how Natives think Canada’s “democracy” is so superior, considering their ethnic interests are voted down.

Would you accept Tibetan interests coming to a vote vs. a non-Tibetan majority?

is there an echo in here? Are you a broken MP3 player stuck on repeat? See above in this comment, and you might as well see all the comments I’ve made to you to date. Is anybody home? While you’re fixing your flash memory, you might want to upload a program for mathematics, or perhaps statistics. It’d do you some good.

I’m going to repeat it until you realize how stupid your argument is. Your claim was that you living in Canada was an argument in support of democracy. The truth is you only live there because it avails to you all the comforts and benefits Canada built on hundreds of years of mass murder and disenfranchisement.

I wonder if the politburo is smarter than 90% of Chinese people?

Probably not.

What I said, many times, is who gets to determine what expertise is desired, and who possesses such expertise. I say it should be the people.

No, you say it should be the mob. I say it should be the obvious- expertise, track record, testing, moderated with rule of law and transparent, public scrutiny.

we’re talking about “real world”. Have you seen it?

Yes and rule of law exists in Singapore as well. Any more nonsense claims you want to make?

All I said is that corruption is not a good metric for determining whether democracy is good/bad

No, you said that corruption taints the concept of democracy but is not inherent to democracy itself. Both meaningless and unsubstantiated, which was obviously my point. You are just vomiting the standard democratic brainwashing.

You might want to spend some more time instead on your logic, and math.

Are you saying you’re a sociopath or something? No wonder you’re so fascinated with the power of mobs. People are not just numbers on paper.

Democracy is great because it allows the people to make decisions concerning how they themselves will be governed.

No it doesn’t. It gives about half the people the ability to restrict the rights of political, ethnic, whatever minorities. It opens up channels for high level bribery. It gives incentive for big companies to brainwash and deceive.

Is it perfect? Of course not.

Really, would this be an acceptable defense for anything?

Are people fallable and make mistakes? Certainly. But democracy also allows for people to correct their mistakes, in due course.

Fallible. Yes, theoretically they can correct their mistakes. But how often do they do it?

But the people, as the employer, should decide which experts they will employ.

You mean the mob. “They” vote mainly based on looks and religion. And media hype.

If you’ll notice, my points relate to the concept of democracy.

People have advocated the concept of fascism and Communism too. It turns out none of these things ever end up being worth having a revolution over.

Iraqis had an election yesterday, replete with bombings of polling stations and at least 38 killed. There must be something in the new-found sense of democracy and the existence of democratic rights that augments the courage of the people

What was the turnout? Is that counting the 1.2 million dead or 5 million refugees?

You seem to have this habit of just drawing strange, unsubstantiated conclusions.

@Mike
He lives in the US by choice and loves how he lives but hates the fact that it jars with his conceptions.

You guys are good at this ad hominem/unsourced claim thing. When your argument is pathetic, make shit up. Good strategy.

It might make you feel good about yourself, but it doesn’t change the fact that I won the argument and made you look like an idiot.

March 13, 2010 @ 9:31 am | Comment

“You guys are good at this ad hominem/unsourced claim thing. When your argument is pathetic, make shit up. Good strategy.”
You don’t live in the US then? I seem to recall you saying you did live there…

“It might make you feel good about yourself, but it doesn’t change the fact that I won the argument and made you look like an idiot.”
Hahahahahahah! Nice try but no dice. You’re on a hiding to nothing and losing. Saying you “won” something doesn’t mean you have. Shall we have a show of hands?

March 13, 2010 @ 12:36 pm | Comment

What do you call America’s overthrow/assassinations of Mossadegh, Lumumba and Allende then? I don’t see how this is strictly a CCP issue.

Which makes the CCP’s moral yardstick as good as the US imperialists?

March 13, 2010 @ 5:39 pm | Comment

but it doesn’t change the fact that I won the argument and made you look like an idiot.

If that is what your life is all about all along, i think you are pathetic.

March 13, 2010 @ 5:41 pm | Comment

How do you explain them lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty then in the past few decades then? Creating the fastest economic growth in human history? Motivated by corruption and personal gain?

Deng maybe great, but he and the Party are not altruistic saints. The party reformers did what they had to, especially after the years of self-inflicted destruction orchestrated by Mao and his henchmen. They acted out of enlightened self-interest because they feared that if they don’t act fast, they will end up like the Soviet empire.

March 13, 2010 @ 5:47 pm | Comment

Which makes the CCP’s moral yardstick as good as the US imperialists?

The CCP defies the US. Therefore it serves some kind of purpose- unless you’re just a blind lapdog.

Deng maybe great, but he and the Party are not altruistic saints.

Politicians..

They acted out of enlightened self-interest because they feared that if they don’t act fast, they will end up like the Soviet empire.

As does America’s regime.

March 14, 2010 @ 3:43 am | Comment

The CCP defies the US.

What’s so ironic is that as CCP continues to “defy” the US, it continues to bankroll the imperialists’ operations around the world by accumulating huge amounts of dollars and US treasurty bills.

March 14, 2010 @ 12:08 pm | Comment

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.