Posted on 08/12/2011 10:29:30 PM PDT by robertvance
Maybe you havn't noticed but America just elected a known in your face Marxist as President..
You know... Commander in Chief of all the Armed Forces.. that guy..
"WE ARE INDEED KIDDING OURSELVES"
[ Bachman? I dunno. I’d be more incline to go for sara instead. like i said, i like that ronald reagan style in perry. ]
Sarah is not running... BAchmann is the only one with balls..
Perry has Reagans hair.. thats about it... quite a few votes tho in some circles..
[Maybe you havn’t noticed but America just elected a known in your face Marxist as President..
You know... Commander in Chief of all the Armed Forces.. that guy..
“WE ARE INDEED KIDDING OURSELVES” ]
Elected? Are you sure it was an elected processes?
Logical deductions: In America, I’m adamant that the chance probability of a member of one America’s minority groups, any minority group, at winning of an election should have been and rightfully ought to have been no more than low teen percentage points of total vote.
Hey, you can refute me on that assessment and believe in everything that appears on the surface only or believe in that which was fed us through the mass medias but the fact are indisputable: Meaning honestly is called into question here — America is a racially charged society. Examples: Chinks, ChinamanS, Commies, ChiComs, Hindus, Japs, Ragheads, what not? Therefore, IMHO, the only way he would have gotten all those votes was because it was an appointment.
You see, the majority of Americans are like sheep is how I see it. Meaning if the big boy’s of America’s exclusively big boy’s Club decides to appoints someone instead, they have all the wits to make magic out of it. All that’s needed is to have the candidate’s popularity pumped up in a popular talk show and kaboom, everyone starts to put away their racial indifference’s saying they ain’t no racist and they fall in love with who ever is the star of the show.
Oh, yes I agree. And the foundation is centered on the missionary period between the Civil War and WWII. Pearl S. Buck was one of such figures as she wrote the book "The Good Earth". It became a best selling novel at the time and won a Pulizter Prize. It was sad that Mao's wife didn't allow Pearl Buck to visit China during Nixon's visit.
But yes, Roosevelt was looking for ways to help China during WWII. He even wanted to send 500 B-17's to China in the years before Pearl Harbor. Unfortunately, there weren't sufficient pilots in China that could fly them.
There is, therefore, the rather unpleasant possibility that a steady growth of Government is inevitable for modern nation states. I mean, I'm sure your numbers are right, but that kind of growth is by no means unique to the US. I know for a fact that the proportion of Britain's GDP has grown in much the same kind of way (only higher), and no one was able to change that. Even Maggie Thatcher couldn't reverse the inexorable rise in the size of HM Government. Granted, when conservatives have been in power the growth has been nowhere near as fast, but its still been there. And the reason is very simple. Its very popular with the people when the government "gives" something to them. It's very unpopular when it "takes it away". And Governments run under a democratic system are ultimately dependent on the goodwill of the electors. Frankly, (and worryingly) it may be politically impossible to reduce the size of the Federal government. Its been said before on these boards - What happens when the people learn and get used to the idea that they can vote themselves more goodies?
Ultimately, bottom line, it's because Democrats are evil, and Republicans are stupid and cowards -- how can I say it more simply?
Or Democrats are misguided and Republicans are helpless. In either case, I'm sorry, but as you the people vote them into power the buck ultimately stops with the electors.
But it must be done, because Democrats have no other value, if I might say so: no other reason to live, than grow, grow, grow and yet still grow the federal government. If they are not stopped, they will eventually consume all of what was once -- and can still be -- the greatest nation in history.
Agreed. But how to do it? That is the question. Voting Obama out in November will remove the current flowering of the malaise, but it won't destroy the root causes.
America is no more racially charged than any other country, and far less so than most.
The worst of the names you list here, and others, were applied to groups who had first declared themselves our enemies -- i.e., Germans, Japanese, International Communists and now radical Muslims.
Of course, applying such epethets to innocent Americans and our friends abroad is no way to win over their hearts and minds.
So that is not only racist, it's stupid.
As for Obama's election in 2008, I've called it a political swoon by Democrats and Independents, fueled by the "mainstream" media and abetted by conservatives' disgust with our own RINO-type candidates.
The reason for all that swooning, and "a thrill up my leg", was the opportunity to elect the first black president, and especially one who sounded so "moderate."
Of course, much of the reality of Obama's leftism was known at the time, but the left's swooning was so complete, the lamestream never bothered to check him out.
As for our Constitutional technicalities, Obama was nominated and elected as fairly as any President in history.
So, your word "appointment" here simply does not apply.
It's true, we don't have a lot of historical examples of countries voluntarily reducing the size of their government by, say, 50%.
One can only wonder if, for example, the breakup of the old Soviet Union, circa 1989, might serve as some kind of model?
I should also mention that the numbers I gave only represent Federal spending.
If you add onto that the costs of typical state and local governments, now we are looking at total government spending which since WWII was already 1/3 of the economy and is now rapidly rising towards 1/2.
And that is truly the land of European style socialism, because, what you say here about Britain is also true of most other European countries.
Vanders9: "What happens when the people learn and get used to the idea that they can vote themselves more goodies?"
As your word "goodies" implies, what we are talking about here are children seeing candy on the kitchen counter, and unable to resist their urge to just take it.
The only solution, again implied by the "cookies" metaphor, is adult supervision and that, in turn, can only work in countries where there are enough adults to elect adult leaders.
So, where are we going to find enough adults?
Well, it is a sad fact of human nature that difficult times tend to turn boys into men and girls into women a lot faster than just letting the good times roll.
Hard times can sometimes bring out the best in people.
Any challenge which doesn't break you will only make you stronger...
Vander9: "as you the people vote them into power the buck ultimately stops with the electors."
Of course, but in any democratic process there are numerous feed-back loops between our leaders and our voters.
Good citizens elect good leaders.
Good leaders bring out the best in their citizens.
It is often a virtuous cycle, leading to great results.
But the reverse is also true, and that's what we've seen over the last 100 years with ever growing government.
Vanders9: "Voting Obama out in November will remove the current flowering of the malaise, but it won't destroy the root causes."
It will provide us with another opportunity (maybe the last?) to demonstrate just what adult supervision over our federal government can do, in terms of reducing its size, spending, taxes, unnecessary regulations, etc.
I am not pimping for Taiwan. I’m simply stating what current U.S. policy is. We have adhered to a ONE CHINA policy since the 1970’s in case you haven’t noticed.
I don’t know where you get the idea that I want the PRC to invade Taiwan. I don’t think anybody wants that to happen.
China’s aircraft carrier is a refitted former Russian aircraft carrier. Not a likely serious threat to the United States.
You could make this your point #6.
Your likely right, but I have no experience on Russian Aircraft Carriers....
I have seen Russian ships before, they appear to take a ton of maintenance and appear to have massive corrosion issues.
If they are like the ships I saw in Vlad, 60% of their ships in lay-up, that means that this ship will be in a dry dock more than it is at sea.
Here is the essence of my post.
There can not be a "re-unification", as they were never "unfied" or a "unification", as that would mean the violation of a sovereign state.
Taiwan is not a "renegade province."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.