Do Young Taiwanese want to Reunify With China?

[Speeder 2]

Good...So now we have an admission that communism is an utter failure.

There's been no such a thing as "communism" unless in minds of some delusional Jews.

Today's China is not communism, she never was (neither was Soviet). The ones who believe otherwise can go take some pills, or purple pumps, whichever are nearer.

Of course it does. The largest communist regime, the Soviet Union, collapsed. The second, China, got embarrassed and enacted reforms.

No, the largest communist regime, if you insist there is one, is alive and kicking, led by "democratic" Barack Obongo.

What embarassed China was not 'communism" actually (it's never exited), but cult-like worship and political infights of Mao & Co, which fundamentally was no different from any peasant revolutionist in Imperial China's long history when he successfully overthrew the last emporer and set up another Dynasty of his own. The same goes to Soviet.

The technology argument is another red herring. Advances in technology is the result of a vibrant democracy. Not the other way around.

BS !

Jews created and embraced concepts of both Communism and Democracy . While Communism became an empty slogan in the East hidhjacked by Jewish revoluntionlists, democracy has successfully highjacked the mass in the West. If Communism can be called a sort of "idealism", then "democracy" is just non-brainer estupido -

2 votes of garbage collectors worth more than 1 vote of a university professor. That is what is called "democracy" in a nutshell - it is THE way to Communism indeed!

The only winners here are Jews, as one can see clearly now that they created and played both "camps ".



Hitler, whether one likes him or not, at least had an outstanding insights into modern "democracy" more than half a century ago:


" Democracy is the canal through which bolshevism lets its poisons flow into the separate countries and lets work there long enough for these infections to lead to a crippling of intelligence and of the force of resistance... German culture is a collective body, not as individual members... It (democracy) is fundamentally not German, it is Jewish! ".


Hitler further briliantly trashed the Jewish democratic parliamentary system -

" We oppose the corrupting parliamentary custom of filling posts merely in accordance with party considerations, and without reference to character or abilities. "


Convinced that the capitalism being a tool used by Jews to control the mass, Hitler blasted the Jewish Democracy and its vessel - the unfettered Jewish capitalism --

"The masses of the people do not interest [capitalists] in the least. They are interested in them...only when elections are being held, when they need votes."




So ture are Hitler's insights, particularly right after this global financial crisis, more than half a century later!



Hitler attributed the Jewish democratic `success` in their ability to make public opinion serve their own interests. "And [this] can be achieved by the man who can lie most artfully, most infamously..."


So who is this man who "can lie most artfully, most infamously" whom Hitler referred to?

Bush Jr.?

Or Barack Obongo?

Or both of them ?


Goldman Sachs was the largest donor/corporate sponsor for both Barack Obama and John McCain!


And you and your brainwashed sheeple still come here BSing the merits of vibrant Jewish "democracy"?


Jewish Democracy is the road to Jewish Communism; unfettered Jewish capitalism (think Fed and Wall Street) is the ideal highjacking tool to support Jewish Democracy (think corporate sponsors and lobbies)!

Advances in technologies in Human history have had nothing , absolutely nothing, to do with any of above poisons!






P.S. to Mods:

I quoted Hitler from the angle of his intellectural capacities on the matter concerned, hence it should NOT be deemed as racism, or revisionism, or anything connected to WW2 under above context.

 

[dingyibvs]

This is a red herring argument. One's education level is not the same thing as being knowledgeable about a particular subject or a person. A rocket scientist and a brain surgeon are educated people but both are as clueless about Obama as the plumber who worked for them.


Point being...??? Or is this statement just 'filler material'?


From the public, and that includes corporations. Or are you going to tell me that individuals do not contribute?


Truth is not fact. What we call 'the truth' about anything comes from a collection of facts. Truths, or theories, explains facts and how individual facts relate to each other. Biases present the electorate with facts and their versions of 'the truth'. False 'truths' or incorrect theories are better than nothing at all, which is what you are trying to defend communism here, by pointing out the flaws of functional democracies.


No...What I said is that criticisms about 'the media' are distractions to the fact that in a functional democracy, the burden of electing the best candidate to a particular office rests upon the electorate, not 'the media'. In a communist regime, there is no such thing as 'the electorate' because in order to have 'elections' there must be choices and we know that commies hate choices.


So why is this the fault of 'the media'?


The primary reason any US President or Representative or Senator is elected is about what can any do domestically, not for foreign affairs. In a communist regime, this is irrelevant because the opinion of the people is...errr...irrelevant.

Gambit, you must be pretty adroit at this internet debate thing, because you seem to be a master atbreaking down a cohesive paragraph into disparate sentences so you take them out of context. I hope that you'll instead present your own views and contrast them with mine.

First, the education level I mentioned should be pretty evident. I was clearly speaking about education level in the context of politics, not rocket science. My sentence regarding lies and truths told during a campaign is also clearly within the context of politics, specifically the influence of the media on the general populace and therefore politics. I thought my logic was pretty clear, even if you don't agree with it: campaigning matters, therefore ads matter, therefore money matters, and therefore the big corporations matter. Yes, individuals contribute as well, but each party has a solid base where their contributions stay relatively the same regardless of the policies their parties trumpet. It's the swing votes that decide an election, and that's where big corporations make their difference.

Truth is absolute. Truths are not theories, they're facts. At least they are to me, so when I mention truth, consider that I'm talking about facts, and not people's theories about these facts.

You're right, the burden lies in the electorate, and I'm saying that the electorate is clearly not educated enough(and I'm talking about in politics, I don't know why I even have to clarify this) to shoulder this burden. What's the point of having choices if people can't make informed decisions? Do you give a 3 year old the choice of running wild in busy streets? By your own admission, the American electorate elected the wrong president, no?

I didn't say that it's the media's fault that people don't care about politics. I don't know where you get that. I simply pointed out the reason for why the media, and, again, by extension the big corporations(follow my line of reasoning in the previous paragraphs) have such an influence. In case it's not clear enough: the media have an influence because the general populace don't educate themselves enough.

Yes, the senators/representatives are elected to primarily to deal with domestic issues, but there needs to be a balance. This is another issue with the American form of government, which actually relates to my main point, but I won't go in depth here for now.

 

[dingyibvs]

Good...So now we have an admission that communism is an utter failure.


Of course it does. The largest communist regime, the Soviet Union, collapsed. The second, China, got embarrassed and enacted reforms.


The technology argument is another red herring. Advances in technology is the result of a vibrant democracy. Not the other way around.

Taking sentences out of context again....

I think it's obvious that through my rejection of the efficacies of democracy that not having it is no sign of failure. Yes, the Soviet Union collapsed, but what does it prove? It proves that the Soviet brand of communism, and I'm using the word communism very loosely here as I assume you are as well, does not work. China, as you mentioned, enacted reforms. Let's not downplay the extent or the significance of these reforms--the Chinese brand of communism is vastly different from the Soviet brand.

As for technology, I'm fairly certain that the Western world was well, WELL ahead of the rest of the world technologically before the advent of strong democracies.

 

[gambit]

Gambit, you must be pretty adroit at this internet debate thing,...

Well enough.

First, the education level I mentioned should be pretty evident. I was clearly speaking about education level in the context of politics, not rocket science.

You may think you were clear, but you were not.

If the electorate is educated enough, they can simply make informed decisions based on each candidate's public records.

There is nothing there for the readers to 'clearly' see that you were talking about politics. Further, the argument is clearly flawed with this phrase: "...based on each candidate's public records." It is flawed in assuming that all candidates already have a public record. A freshman US Representative can get elected with no record or even experience at holding any public office. Ross Perot ran for President and he has no public office records. The current California governor held no prior and lesser public office. Need I go on?

Truth is absolute. Truths are not theories, they're facts. At least they are to me, so when I mention truth, consider that I'm talking about facts, and not people's theories about these facts.

In science, theories explains facts...

Theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Theories are constructed to explain, predict, and master phenomena (e.g., inanimate things, events, or behavior of animals). A scientific theory can be thought of as a model of reality, and its statements as axioms of some axiomatic system. The aim of this construction is to create a formal system for which reality is the only model. The world is an interpretation (or model) of such scientific theories, only insofar as the sciences are true.

No different for human endeavors. Truths are like theories in that BEFORE you can postulate a 'truth' you need supporting evidences, such as how does theft reduces trust, and related arguments, to assert that it is wrong to steal.

You're right, the burden lies in the electorate, and I'm saying that the electorate is clearly not educated enough(and I'm talking about in politics, I don't know why I even have to clarify this) to shoulder this burden.

No electorate is ever completely 'educated' enough about the political processes. But what the people do instinctively understand is that politics affect their lives. This is typical: Demand an unreasonable standard of functional democracies to obliquely defend odious regimes.

What's the point of having choices if people can't make informed decisions? Do you give a 3 year old the choice of running wild in busy streets? By your own admission, the American electorate elected the wrong president, no?

Bad analogy. No surprise there. In order to make informed decisions, one must have adequate mental and intellectual faculties. A three-year old have neither.

I didn't say that it's the media's fault that people don't care about politics. I don't know where you get that. I simply pointed out the reason for why the media, and, again, by extension the big corporations(follow my line of reasoning in the previous paragraphs) have such an influence. In case it's not clear enough: the media have an influence because the general populace don't educate themselves enough.

On the surface, the accusation is reasonable. But upon closer examination, we find that 'the media' is the only avenue the people has to examine the facts, form their own theories, or truths, and make as best informed decisions as they can. The phrase 'informed decision' in no way demand that the decision will always come out favorable. An 'informed decision' mean the person is not devoid of facts, although through the vagaries of life, one person may be less aware of facts, or receive the lesser abundance of facts, than his neighbors. For the US, television is considered to be 'liberal' and AM talk radio is the province of 'conservatives'. Air America tried to break into this area and that politically liberal format failed. No one forced them out. No one censored Air America. The format failed because of lack of audience. AM conservative talk radio is part of 'the media'. Fox News is 'conservative' and is on television. I could go on. The point here is that it is no longer possible to blame 'the media' for ill informed decisions and like it or not, an ill informed decision is still an informed decision.

 

[gambit]

I think it's obvious that through my rejection of the efficacies of democracy that not having it is no sign of failure. Yes, the Soviet Union collapsed, but what does it prove? It proves that the Soviet brand of communism, and I'm using the word communism very loosely here as I assume you are as well, does not work. China, as you mentioned, enacted reforms. Let's not downplay the extent or the significance of these reforms--the Chinese brand of communism is vastly different from the Soviet brand.

Do you think it is possible to retire this 'brand' argument? How many brand of communism are there? How much reforms can you insert and still brand it? The core of communism is as Marx put it:

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

A seminary is very much a 'communist' society. Greed is frowned upon. If we cannot control man's inner desires, we will control access to material wealth that feed his greed. That is applied communism and it failed. People outside of the seminary remains greedy. They want more than their neighbors. The Soviet Union and China failed to control man's greed. One collapsed and the other has to change. Communism is an utter failure.

As for technology, I'm fairly certain that the Western world was well, WELL ahead of the rest of the world technologically before the advent of strong democracies.

Cause and effect? Can you show us a direct casual relationship? The US Constitution was reasonably democratic with horse-and-buggy routine.

 

[dingyibvs]

Well enough.


You may think you were clear, but you were not.


There is nothing there for the readers to 'clearly' see that you were talking about politics. Further, the argument is clearly flawed with this phrase: "...based on each candidate's public records." It is flawed in assuming that all candidates already have a public record. A freshman US Representative can get elected with no record or even experience at holding any public office. Ross Perot ran for President and he has no public office records. The current California governor held no prior and lesser public office. Need I go on?


In science, theories explains facts...

Theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No different for human endeavors. Truths are like theories in that BEFORE you can postulate a 'truth' you need supporting evidences, such as how does theft reduces trust, and related arguments, to assert that it is wrong to steal.


No electorate is ever completely 'educated' enough about the political processes. But what the people do instinctively understand is that politics affect their lives. This is typical: Demand an unreasonable standard of functional democracies to obliquely defend odious regimes.


Bad analogy. No surprise there. In order to make informed decisions, one must have adequate mental and intellectual faculties. A three-year old have neither.


On the surface, the accusation is reasonable. But upon closer examination, we find that 'the media' is the only avenue the people has to examine the facts, form their own theories, or truths, and make as best informed decisions as they can. The phrase 'informed decision' in no way demand that the decision will always come out favorable. An 'informed decision' mean the person is not devoid of facts, although through the vagaries of life, one person may be less aware of facts, or receive the lesser abundance of facts, than his neighbors. For the US, television is considered to be 'liberal' and AM talk radio is the province of 'conservatives'. Air America tried to break into this area and that politically liberal format failed. No one forced them out. No one censored Air America. The format failed because of lack of audience. AM conservative talk radio is part of 'the media'. Fox News is 'conservative' and is on television. I could go on. The point here is that it is no longer possible to blame 'the media' for ill informed decisions and like it or not, an ill informed decision is still an informed decision.

Now you're just nitpicking. What proportion of U.S. representatives, senators, and governors were elected without public record? Of course there has to be a starting point, before anybody has any real knowledge regarding the candidate. But by and large, the important political offices are held by people who DO have public record to be judged. Really, that's the way it should be. It's a failure of the American system that Schwarzenegger can be elected without any type of public record. What credentials did he have before getting elected? Just another sign that the general populace is incapable of handling the burden of general elections.

Theories explain facts, OK? When did I talk about theories? In fact, I specifically clarified that when I talk about truths, I am NOT talking about theories.

Bad analogy with the 3 year old? What difference is there between a 3 year old who is incapable vs. a 20 year old who is unwilling? Neither possesses the necessary knowledge to make informed decisions. In this respect, democracy is very similar to communism: great in theory, but impossible in practice. They're both so because they both neglect human nature. Sure, it's nice to live in a society without greed, it's also nice to live in a society where everyone seeks to educate themselves in politics. But neither is happening now, is it?

As for your example of Air America, my point stays the same. People have access to facts, but few are willing to seek them out and verify them. Instead, they rely on ill-informed media talking heads to learn facts and interpret them. Sure, in theory, an ill-informed decision is still an informed decision, but that requires a listener/viewer who is capable of and willing to think independently. That's just an impossible dream, not much unlike the communist dream of people without greed.

 

[below_freezing]

don't bother. he thinks he can overthrow vietnam's government by simply visiting and talking. he seems to confuse the "power of democracy" with the "power of CIA money".

 

[dingyibvs]

Do you think it is possible to retire this 'brand' argument? How many brand of communism are there? How much reforms can you insert and still brand it? The core of communism is as Marx put it:

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A seminary is very much a 'communist' society. Greed is frowned upon. If we cannot control man's inner desires, we will control access to material wealth that feed his greed. That is applied communism and it failed. People outside of the seminary remains greedy. They want more than their neighbors. The Soviet Union and China failed to control man's greed. One collapsed and the other has to change. Communism is an utter failure.


Cause and effect? Can you show us a direct casual relationship? The US Constitution was reasonably democratic with horse-and-buggy routine.

Why, theoretically there can be an infinite number of brands. In fact, you seem like you don't know this yet, some of them are not even communist!

Really, I find it a bit disheartening that I'm arguing with someone who thinks that China is communist in anything more than name. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need...give me a break. China had abandoned that 30 years ago. In fact, America is much more communist than China is these days. Tax dollars for social security, and now universal healthcare? Sounds like from each according to his ability and to each according to his need to me.

As for your demand for causal relationship, I suppose it's only fair that I demand the same of you, no? I don't think either of us can provide anything conclusive. Perhaps you can, but I certainly can't. It was simply speculation on my part, and only future history, I suppose, can prove our predictions.

 

[below_freezing]

you're falling for his word games if you argue like that. it's better to argue in this way:

there are 530 congress members in the US representing 300 million people.
there are 5000 congress members in china representing 1.3 billion people.

we have 4x the population but 10x the representatives. who is more democratic?

these americans don't understand "why" they never question "why" and they'll never question anything their wall street propaganda feeds them.

 

[topjumper]

you're falling for his word games if you argue like that. it's better to argue in this way:

there are 530 congress members in the US representing 300 million people.
there are 5000 congress members in china representing 1.3 billion people.

we have 4x the population but 10x the representatives. who is more democratic?

these americans don't understand "why" they never question "why" and they'll never question anything their wall street propaganda feeds them.

Oh they question it alright, but nothing can be done, just look at the new financial regulation bill got passed -- it's so watered down by the lobbyists in the end that it practically makes no difference to wall street: no breakup of any institution, no new taxes, no new barriers between trading and commercial banking, and no limits on individual bonuses.

Money make things go around, it's true everywhere. The communists tried to defy it but they failed, it's in human's nature to covet and consume after all. Maybe one day we'll evolve to be more self-less than we are now, but it'll be in a very distant future if ever.

 

[prototype]

you're falling for his word games if you argue like that. it's better to argue in this way:

there are 530 congress members in the US representing 300 million people.
there are 5000 congress members in china representing 1.3 billion people.

we have 4x the population but 10x the representatives. who is more democratic?

these americans don't understand "why" they never question "why" and they'll never question anything their wall street propaganda feeds them.

its like this-300 million getting an opportunity to elect 530 members with different ideology

and 1.3 b only getting to elect 5000 member with same ideology

 

[below_freezing]

its like this-300 million getting an opportunity to elect 530 members with different ideology

and 1.3 b only getting to elect 5000 member with same ideology

oh yes they have much different ideologies. as different as indias.

US representatives: i need a 5th BMW to fill my 3 car garage mansion, gotta pass more laws so wall street bosses give me some money!

india representatives: why pass laws? i'll just take the money myself.

 

[encounter]

Taiwan...only...?????

Breaking News: China Buys Hawaii
May 24, 2010 - 3:56 pm

China announced that it will buy the state of Hawaii, pending adoption of an ad hoc amendment to the Constitution of the People's Republic of China.

If adopted, the amendment would permit immediate dispersal of funds to the United States from China's vast coffers. A special session of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPC) is currently weighing the merits of the deal, terms of which have not been disclosed but rumored to be a small multiple of Hawaii's $50.1 billion Gross State Product (GSP).

According to a source inside the NPC, speaking on condition of anonymity because he did not want to be seen as speaking for China's highest organ of state power, it's a done deal. A straw poll of deputies to the NPC indicates that the amendment has more than the two-thirds majority required for adoption, he said.

Thanks to its biggest buying spree since last September, China, which bought a net $18 billion worth of U.S. Treasury bills, notes and bonds in March, has a world-leading Treasury hoard of $895 billion and a whopping $2.5 trillion in foreign reserves. It can easily afford Hawaii.


Hawaii, on its part, has not been an innocent bystander. They have been actively courting China, spending $1 million to draw Chinese attention to the Aloha State. Nearly half of that budget is to be part of the U.S. pavilion at the 2010 Shanghai World Expo, the state's largest and most expensive single promotion ever for Hawaii in China. Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle visited China in November. China’s Hainan Airlines has already received approval from the U.S. Department of Transportation to add service between Beijing and Honolulu.

"My dream is to travel to Hawaii," said our source. "Hawaii is in every Chinese textbook because Sun Yat-sen, the founder of modern China, went to Iolani School and because of movies and television shows such as 'Hawaii Five-O' and 'Magnum, P.I.'" He was last seen departing Beijing Capital International Airport wearing a shanzhai Hilo Hattie's Aloha shirt, board shorts and flip-flops.

The White House could not be reached for comment.

(Although Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, Commerce Secretary Gary Locke and a host of Cabinet secretaries and agency chiefs have recently been spotted in Beijing.)

 

[Desertfalcon]

you're falling for his word games if you argue like that. it's better to argue in this way:

there are 530 congress members in the US representing 300 million people.
there are 5000 congress members in china representing 1.3 billion people.

we have 4x the population but 10x the representatives. who is more democratic?

these americans don't understand "why" they never question "why" and they'll never question anything their wall street propaganda feeds them.

Yes, but with all due respect Sir, you can't be a representative in the PR of China unless you have the OK by the ruling party.

Anyone from any party, can run, and do run, for any office in the United States. You can run for any office and advocate everything from communism to green mother earth environmentalism to right-wing Christian fundamentalism and no one will stop you. You can say what you want, how you want, and not one person from the government will tell you you can't.

That is what democracy is and how you can tell which countries do not have it.

 

[below_freezing]

but do they get into office?

the "ruling party" in china is 1/4 the population of the US, what about the US? what's the ratio of your "representatives" to the population?

yes, no one will stop you from running for office, but you'll never get in without money and you'll never get money without being cozy with wall street.