pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
 ·Comcast
| But They're #1!
Where are all those people who were praising China for its increasing broadband penetration and who were saying that China is somehow better than the USA in this regard. This development shows that China hasn't moved anywhere up on the human rights ladder.
If any country needs a regime change, its China.
--
Hey Fast Eddie... you're next! |
|
some guy
@milwwi.ameritech
| yeah, you say that now, until you have to pay for chinese stuff made with non-slave labor
people often whine about china's government and anti-human rights policies, but they are the first ones to fill their cart at walmart with cheap chinese crap |
|
BosstonesOwn
join:2002-12-15
Everett, MA
clubs:
·Comcast
| reply to pnh102
Ahh I think it was every one jealous of the adoption of the ipv6 standard.
I think we are still jealous of the Koreans and the japanese... maybe even the Malaysian services.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" |
|
CPM
join:2001-08-24
Miami, FL | reply to pnh102
It will happen. We are soaking them in capitalism. |
|
attndefecit
join:2005-04-19
New York, NY
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102  :Where are all those people who were praising China for its increasing broadband penetration and who were saying that China is somehow better than the USA in this regard. This development shows that China hasn't moved anywhere up on the human rights ladder. If any country needs a regime change, its China. Yea, and it's the business of the United States to go interfere with it change it. Why don't we just mind our own damn business? This is another nation which is not aggressive toward us, yet we feel the need to massage their prostate daily to see what's up. Well, we should watch out...China ain't Iraq and it ain't in the mood to put up with any of GW's horse shit. |
|
GhostDoggy
join:2005-05-11
Duluth, GA | China may not be directly aggressive with the USA, but they are aggressive with a couple of our economic friends. Should we ignore friends?
I suppose you had a fundamental problem with the Gulf War, too. |
|
Titus Pullo
I came, I saw, I slept
join:2004-06-26
 ·Embarq
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102 :Where are all those people who were praising China for its increasing broadband penetration and who were saying that China is somehow better than the USA in this regard. This development shows that China hasn't moved anywhere up on the human rights ladder. If any country needs a regime change, its China. I don't know who was singing China's praises over BB penetration, but regime change? That's funny! Do you swallow these talking points in small doses or down 'em all at once?
Most of the 'regimes' that support the U.S. (in China's case by buying our debt via US Treasuries to keep us afloat) or that we support (because of 'strategic interests' such as Saudi Arabia or Egypt) are no better than those we don't: we simply sell their neighbors illegal arms to keep them in check and fight them by proxy - their blood, our guns.
Studies show that more than half of half the people that voted for Bush still think Iraq was behind the attacks of 9/11. But the facts, inconvenient little devils that they are, tell us that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi! And this was known in 2002! Good old Saudi Arabia ... where, by the way, women still can't vote or drive a car! But then you probably think that's a good thing, huh? 
--
"The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppose." -- Frederick Douglass |
|
Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA
| reply to GhostDoggy
said by GhostDoggy :China may not be directly aggressive with the USA, but they are aggressive with a couple of our economic friends. Should we ignore friends? China at this point is just biding their time. We just gotta hope that those who are working internally to dismantle the Communist Chinese government are able to do so before their government decides it's time to expand.
After all they aren't stockpiling resources for the hell of it.
--
Beagles really should come in convienent 10 packs. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
2 edits | reply to Titus Pullo
Timothy McVeigh was a U.S. Citizen. Terri Nichols is also a U.S. Citizen. That means that 2 of the 2 persons directly responsible for the OKC bombing were U.S. Citizens. That's an even higher ratio than Saudis to 9/11 hijackers. By your logic does this mean the U.S. Government was responsible for the OKC bombing?
Sure the Saudis have a terrible human rights record, but with the recent local elections there at least there is some hope for them to move in the right direction. When this country first started, slavery was legal and women could not vote either but these issues were resolved. China doesn't allow for any of its subjects to enjoy these freedoms.
--
Hey Fast Eddie... you're next! |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| reply to CPM
said by CPM :It will happen. We are soaking them in capitalism. I don't know about that. Every country except for the USA trades with Cuba but that prison hasn't moved closer to being a democracy.
--
Hey Fast Eddie... you're next! |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| reply to attndefecit
said by attndefecit :Why don't we just mind our own damn business? This is another nation which is not aggressive toward us, yet we feel the need to massage their prostate daily to see what's up. When foreigners stop trying to kill U.S. Citizens on a daily basis, then we can stop interfering with countries which try to help them.
--
Hey Fast Eddie... you're next! |
|
Captain Obvious
| reply to pnh102
Which prison were you referring to? Cuba, or the "detention facility" at Guantanomo Bay? |
|
some guy
@milwwi.ameritech
| reply to pnh102
so by your logic, should the U.S. invade itself because it harbors anti-U.S. terrorists?
invading countries that "harbor terrorists" often has the added bonus of giving the terrorists a rallying point with they can in turn use to recruit more terrorists
do you fight a bee by killing the bee or by poking its hive with a big stick?
every day the ignorance of bushies shocks and appalls me. just when i think they have reached the bottom of the pit of nationalistic idiocy, they dig it even deeper |
|
DaveNJ
No Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
·Comcast
·Patriot Media
| said by some guy:
so by your logic, should the U.S. invade itself because it harbors anti-U.S. terrorists?
invading countries that "harbor terrorists" often has the added bonus of giving the terrorists a rallying point with they can in turn use to recruit more terrorists
do you fight a bee by killing the bee or by poking its hive with a big stick?
every day the ignorance of bushies shocks and appalls me. just when i think they have reached the bottom of the pit of nationalistic idiocy, they dig it even deeper
Okay what you are saying is that if someone breaks into your home, you should ignore them, because its not politically correct to tell them to leave ? If the US appalls you that much move to france.
--
Liberalism weakening The USA everyday... |
|
some guy
@milwwi.ameritech
| classic non arguments you have their chief
all you need is a bush avatar and you'll be all set
we kill lots of people. we put people in prison without trials. we torture people
what a great moral high ground we have there on china, isn't it? |
|
G_Poobah
join:2004-01-17
Schenectady, NY
| reply to pnh102
Yes, China needs a regime change. But it's not going to happen unless it happens internally. But, the issue here, is that China, a communist state, a totalitarian state, which doesn't respect the rights of it's citizens.. well, let's just say the future of the US is looking like china. If you follow the new laws the US govt is passing, it's pretty obvious that there exists not on the potential, but the probability that the US govt will turn into a totalitarian regime, just like China. Don't believe me? Just read some of the new powers they are getting under the guise of 'stopping terrorism'.
No Warrant searchs and arrests.
Peer-to-Peer=Terrorism.
National ID System (hmm. sounds a lot like 1940'ish europe).
Forced DRM on computer chips.
Fair Use removal via the copyright flag.
X-rated screeners at airports.
Encryption on your computer = criminal liability.. sheesh.
Bit torrent = piracy.
The list goes on and on.. Taken one at a time, they don't sound too bad. Put them all together, and you have.. what's that.. oh, right, CHINA..
--
Grand Poobah |
|
Titus Pullo
I came, I saw, I slept
join:2004-06-26
·Embarq
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102 :Timothy McVeigh was a U.S. Citizen. Terri Nichols is also a U.S. Citizen. That means that 2 of the 2 persons directly responsible for the OKC bombing were U.S. Citizens. That's an even higher ratio than Saudis to 9/11 hijackers. By your logic does this mean the U.S. Government was responsible for the OKC bombing? Sure the Saudis have a terrible human rights record, but with the recent local elections there at least there is some hope for them to move in the right direction. When this country first started, slavery was legal and women could not vote either but these issues were resolved. China doesn't allow for any of its subjects to enjoy these freedoms. The trouble is that most of the regimes we support have terrible human rights records; the question you should be asking is why we support them. As to your points re Saudi Arabia:
The Islamic belief system of Saudi Arabia powers its monarchy; and, by the way, happens to be almost 90% Sunni. Ring a bell?
The government employs the Sharia -- Islamic law -- as their guiding principle of rule. Consequently, Islamic tenets not only govern spirituality and religious practice, but also guide practices of law, business, taxation, and government.
In other words, change has and is going to be slow in coming. They've been giving lip service to reform for years while they've kept us propped up with cheap oil denominated in U.S. dollars. Read: it's a racket. We talk the talk on human rights but we're dancing instead of doing the walk.
Now I know all duh good ol boys wood like da word a jesus to do the same for us po folk heya in the US of A, but if you'd pick up an effin history book, you'd see that's exactly why we came here in the first place - to escape religious persecution.
Oh, and we may have resolved slavery (though those nasty stains it left are real hard to scrub off), but I don't see any resolution to the countless Native Americans we slaughtered during the Trail of Tears and other genocidal acts in the name of Nation building. You guys really do need U.S. History 101. Then maybe you wouldn't swallow all this hannity and limbaugh BS as gospel. Throw a little world history in there and we may just reach a threshold of common sense.
Timmy has nothing to do with any of what is being discussed unless it's some attempt to divert attention from the fact that our Govt's sh*t stinks pretty damn bad.
--
"The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppose." -- Frederick Douglass |
|
Titus Pullo
I came, I saw, I slept
join:2004-06-26
·Embarq
| reply to DaveNJ
said by DaveNJ :said by some guy:
so by your logic, should the U.S. invade itself because it harbors anti-U.S. terrorists?
invading countries that "harbor terrorists" often has the added bonus of giving the terrorists a rallying point with they can in turn use to recruit more terrorists
do you fight a bee by killing the bee or by poking its hive with a big stick?
every day the ignorance of bushies shocks and appalls me. just when i think they have reached the bottom of the pit of nationalistic idiocy, they dig it even deeper
Okay what you are saying is that if someone breaks into your home, you should ignore them, because its not politically correct to tell them to leave ? If the US appalls you that much move to france. I know what he's saying, but you? I'm clueless. And by the way, unless you have a boatload of bucks, there aren't many countries that would take an American citizen just because they may be appalled and want to leave; they don't want us.
Not to mention it's the weakest stance in response to an opposing point of view one can have. Democracy is based on dissent, not lockstep group-think.
--
"The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppose." -- Frederick Douglass |
|
lovewomen
join:2003-08-07
Springfield, VA
·Cox HSI
| reply to G_Poobah
said by G_Poobah :Yes, China needs a regime change. But it's not going to happen unless it happens internally. But, the issue here, is that China, a communist state, a totalitarian state, which doesn't respect the rights of it's citizens.. well, let's just say the future of the US is looking like china. If you follow the new laws the US govt is passing, it's pretty obvious that there exists not on the potential, but the probability that the US govt will turn into a totalitarian regime, just like China. Don't believe me? Just read some of the new powers they are getting under the guise of 'stopping terrorism'. No Warrant searchs and arrests. Peer-to-Peer=Terrorism. National ID System (hmm. sounds a lot like 1940'ish europe). Forced DRM on computer chips. Fair Use removal via the copyright flag. X-rated screeners at airports. Encryption on your computer = criminal liability.. sheesh. Bit torrent = piracy. The list goes on and on.. Taken one at a time, they don't sound too bad. Put them all together, and you have.. what's that.. oh, right, CHINA.. Also add that the federal judges in the USA are increasing right wing who support reducing our freedom. |
|
keyboard5684
join:2001-08-01
Youngsville, PA
 ·Teliax VOIP
 ·WestPAnet Inc.
·WestPAnet Inc. CA..
| reply to some guy
Yes, but you can say what you just did without a problem. That killing, putting people in prison without trials, torturing people so far is to protect you so you can stay stupid shit.
In China you are not allowed to say that the leader is anything but good. They do the same things but here you can complain about it and change it if you want (instead of just spouting how you disagree you do have options). |
|
