Random Political Thoughts

[GeorgieForPresident2216]

China would have overtaken the world's manufacturing whether American companies moved there to take advantage of cheap labour or not, and they would still be undercutting everyone else.  China is still in the midst of building it's foundations for a global empire even as they gain the title of 'world's largest economy'.  It is building infrastructure in the developing nations of Africa and South America the west largely ignores to bring prosperity to those areas, so it can weather an economic failure in America.  It is attempting to move another 100 million rural Chinese citizens into cities over the current decade to further bolster manufacturing capability.  Perhaps the Bush 42 administration could have put heavy tariffs on Chinese imports to retard its spectacular growth, but a modern isolationist economy is a failed economy.  The fact is America just can not compete as a manufacturing nation because it does value providing workers living wages, and because it does value well regulated safety standards, and because workers in America take relative abundance for granted and, I hate to use the word, have a sense of entitlement, so on average probably do not have the work ethic of a desperate Chinese worker.

[albrecht]

China would have overtaken the world's manufacturing whether American companies moved there to take advantage of cheap labour or not, and they would still be undercutting everyone else.  China is still in the midst of building it's foundations for a global empire even as they gain the title of 'world's largest economy'.  It is building infrastructure in the developing nations of Africa and South America the west largely ignores to bring prosperity to those areas, so it can weather an economic failure in America.  It is attempting to move another 100 million rural Chinese citizens into cities over the current decade to further bolster manufacturing capability.  Perhaps the Bush 42 administration could have put heavy tariffs on Chinese imports to retard its spectacular growth, but a modern isolationist economy is a failed economy.  The fact is America just can not compete as a manufacturing nation because it does value providing workers living wages, and because it does value well regulated safety standards, and because workers in America take relative abundance for granted and, I hate to use the word, have a sense of entitlement, so on average probably do not have the work ethic of a desperate Chinese worker.

We see some countries already under-cutting Chinese labor rates in the global race for a bottom. And also we will see how technology in manufacturing  (and savings also in less transportation costs) effect China and maybe bring manufacturing back to the US and Europe (granted less employment here with new technology but possibly cheaper after initial costs to manufacture certain things.) Unless their sea-grabs and deals (with Russia, Africa, etc) keep going they also will have problem with energy costs where as US/Canada has enough natural gas, coal, oil, etc to be self-sufficient- especially with existing (and more) hydro, nuclear, etc power and better efficient use. I think large countries, like the US, Canada, Russia etc could, almost be an autarky but only if there is immigration controls and would entail some austerity for sure. Better though would be a bloc of nations who do hold some human rights standards trade amongst each other and lock out those, like China, who don't.

[paladin1991]

Well I can speak and read Mandarin.  I was an analyst for 15 years working at the NSA with China as my target.  I am an expert on China.  So, I can tell you that you have no idea what you are talking about. 

To think that China was or is going to continue its 'sick man of Asia' image and kowtow to to the West or anyone outside its borders is incredibly misinformed and naive.

Stick to childish rants about Fox News or George Bush and leave the heavy lifting to men.

Okay, MR. Fucking Expert, answer this.  How come when I order the number 9, which comes with 3 eggrolls and I order a side of egg rolls.  How come they always forget to bring my side order with my fucking meal?  They trying to get over on me for the 2.95, the cost of the side order?
I don't trust the little yellow bastards anymore than Nixon did. 

[paladin1991]

I don't like my country being embarrassed by a loser traitor.
Being raised in the Cold War we were taught these chickenshits were to be treated with contempt, not celebrated.
Even if it meant he was disgracing an unpopular and failed president.

Fucking A Skippy.

[chefist]

We see some countries already under-cutting Chinese labor rates in the global race for a bottom. And also we will see how technology in manufacturing  (and savings also in less transportation costs) effect China and maybe bring manufacturing back to the US and Europe (granted less employment here with new technology but possibly cheaper after initial costs to manufacture certain things.) Unless their sea-grabs and deals (with Russia, Africa, etc) keep going they also will have problem with energy costs where as US/Canada has enough natural gas, coal, oil, etc to be self-sufficient- especially with existing (and more) hydro, nuclear, etc power and better efficient use. I think large countries, like the US, Canada, Russia etc could, almost be an autarky but only if there is immigration controls and would entail some austerity for sure. Better though would be a bloc of nations who do hold some human rights standards trade amongst each other and lock out those, like China, who don't.

I was at a conference 3 weeks ago that focused on the future of manufacturing.  The cost of automation is decreasing because China is producing so many automation engineers and producing a large quantity of automated equipment at an ever decreasing cost.  I am using that equiptment to employ US folks here at home! The trend is simple...if you automate in the US and Europe, you can produce products cheaper than using Chinese labor and EVEN Chinese automation! That is where I'm taking my company! I have over 100 employees that used to represent Chinese jobs...now here at home! In the future, I'll represent thousands! The future is bright! God Bless America!

[GeorgieForPresident2216]

I was at a conference 3 weeks ago that focused on the future of manufacturing.  The cost of automation is decreasing because China is producing so many automation engineers and producing a large quantity of automated equipment at an ever decreasing cost.  I am using that equiptment to employ US folks here at home! The trend is simple...if you automate in the US and Europe, you can produce products cheaper than using Chinese labor and EVEN Chinese automation! That is where I'm taking my company! I have over 100 employees that used to represent Chinese jobs...now here at home! In the future, I'll represent thousands! The future is bright! God Bless America!

Any chance you're looking for a Canadian with no marketable skills?

[onan]

Fucking A Skippy.

We have to disagree here. I am not nearly as worried about embarrassment as I am being spied upon. And if my government has egg on it's face due to that behavior, all the better.

[albrecht]

We have to disagree here. I am not nearly as worried about embarrassment as I am being spied upon. And if my government has egg on it's face due to that behavior, all the better.

My issue with Snowden (and Manning) is choice of countries and people to which they fled or gave information, for "freedom." Bill Binney, Frank Snepp, Perry Fellwock, Serpico etc etc didn't go to a potential, at least, enemies with less "freedoms" than us. Almost all of his information, in general not specific program names perhaps, was already known about in some form from other whistle-blowers, "conspiracy theorists", and leaks so why move to countries with less freedom who are, at least arguably, our enemy or leak information for groups with certain agendas unless there was other reasons behind simply wanting to "wake people up" or help the country.

[onan]

My issue with Snowden (and Manning) is choice of countries and people to which they fled or gave information, for "freedom." Bill Binney, Frank Snepp, Perry Fellwock, Serpico etc etc didn't go to a potential, at least, enemies with less "freedoms" than us. Almost all of his information, in general not specific program names perhaps, was already known about in some form from other whistle-blowers, "conspiracy theorists", and leaks so why move to countries with less freedom who are, at least arguably, our enemy or leak information for groups with certain agendas unless there was other reasons behind simply wanting to "wake people up" or help the country.

The way I read it was Snowden wanted to travel to another country and was offered asylum but getting there was impossible without being stopped and extradited back to the US. Unfortunately that left no other alternative.

[albrecht]

The way I read it was Snowden wanted to travel to another country and was offered asylum but getting there was impossible without being stopped and extradited back to the US. Unfortunately that left no other alternative.

Sure, what I am saying is whistleblow and stay here, if you are really trying to help the country, and testify to Congress, a commission, fight in court, go on the news, hell- go on Alex Jones or C2C even. Other whistle-blowers did and do. Or, you really think you will be killed or otherwise rendered into the lawyer-free detainment facilities, flee to a country that is not an, potentially at least, enemy or has less freedom from us (recall folks fleeing to Canada or Sweden back in the day for far less?) I have a mind also that if you make everything public with verifiable evidence and chain of custody etc you are less of a target (at least short-term.) And if he had even more, that he hasn't disclosed, a system of clever distribution and archiving can be a "stay alive" card.

Of course, it is easy for me to arm-chair quarterback in a very stressful situation and I, being of a conspiratorial bent a bit myself, wouldn't put out of a realm of possibility of him being killed- but flee to Russia or China who have a much more record of doing same? Unless there is some other motivations and it would be surprising if those countries didn't debrief "etc" him for more details.

[136 or 142]

My issue with Snowden (and Manning) is choice of countries and people to which they fled or gave information, for "freedom." Bill Binney, Frank Snepp, Perry Fellwock, Serpico etc etc didn't go to a potential, at least, enemies with less "freedoms" than us. Almost all of his information, in general not specific program names perhaps, was already known about in some form from other whistle-blowers, "conspiracy theorists", and leaks so why move to countries with less freedom who are, at least arguably, our enemy or leak information for groups with certain agendas unless there was other reasons behind simply wanting to "wake people up" or help the country.

Yes, I said if you had a problem with at all that it would be the choice of country that he sought asylum in.  For the sake of accuracy, he completely denies that he ever gave Russia any information beyond what he has disclosed to everybody via Glen Greenwald.

[136 or 142]

And I continue to be amused by charges of my unique arrogance. This board is packed with the intellectually vain- it is one of the real endearing aspects of it. Young grasshopper, the farther you get in your studies the more your notions will be challenged. Embrace that. And learn how to return a serve or get out of my hair.

1.This coming from a person who shows absolutely no acceptance of having their notions challenged.  I suggest you try your own medicine first.

2.A person who seems largely incapable of responding to anybody with anything more than childish and unoriginal insults (Young grasshopper?  Is that the best you could come up with?  And yet you seem impressed with yourself.)

I may need to learn how to return a serve but you can't even hit the ball. Now, please vacate the court.

[136 or 142]

To think that China was or is going to continue its 'sick man of Asia' image and kowtow to to the West or anyone outside its borders is incredibly misinformed and naive.

Of course, I can't say one way or the other whether you really were an analyst working on China as I'm sure even the NSA and the CIA have had to accept obvious bottom of the barrel candidates on rare occasions.  But, comments like the above quote from you seriously lead me to doubt you are telling the truth.

I find it incredibly hard to believe that any analyst would fall for the false notion that there are only two choices available.  Nobody is suggesting that China has to kowtow to the West but had George H W Bush stood up to the Butchers of Bejing at the time of Tiananmen Square or had subsequent Presidents stood up to the Chinese dictators and told them that in order for China to fully be accepted into the international community that they had to accept recognized international law and recognized 'best' practices for internal behavior (not killing your own citizens, having proper business laws) China may not be the rogue nation that it is on the vast majority of issues today.

Of course, I could be wrong about whether it would have made any difference, but I'd say it was worth a shot for H W to have at least tried it, rather than wimpily accepting the behavior of the butchers and even excusing it.

For instance, I'm sure China would like to be part of the TPP talks and even more so, I'm sure they would have liked to have been a member of the WTO years before they were finally accepted.

[albrecht]

Yes, I said if you had a problem with at all that it would be the choice of country that he sought asylum in.  For the sake of accuracy, he completely denies that he ever gave Russia any information beyond what he has disclosed to everybody via Glen Greenwald.

Yeah, although I'll take that claim he didn't reveal anything more to Russia, or China, with a grain of salt polonium-210, or ricin, on the side. Though could be true as the publicity and revelations, and purported more revelations, might be enough for those countries. Having said all that, I see no reason Russia has to be our permanent enemy, they share a common enemy in Islam, have vast resources for which we certainly have a market, generally historically share a faith close, if not same, as other European countries and the USA, and has enough space and technology to not, really, be threatened by foreign powers (except us, and now maybe China.) But it  seems almost everyone from each US major party wants it to be so for various reasons (everything from Obama not liking their innocuous laws against homosexuals to the neo-cons and Brzezinski-types wanting a new cold war and worrying about pipelines etc.) We lost a good opportunit(ies) to get Russia more on "our side" and even against China and instead we drive them together (at least for now) and allow the corruption of the "communist" system to become maybe even more corrupt by throwing money to them and ignoring the situation, expanding NATO (I'm not saying I was against this but could've been done in a better manner and even, maybe a way to bring Russia into it over time), supporting Muslims against Slavs and Christians, and treating them like children (a misspelled "reset button" stunt? Is this Sesame Street?)

[136 or 142]

Yeah, although I'll take that claim he didn't reveal anything more to Russia, or China, with a grain of salt polonium-210, or ricin, on the side. Though could be true as the publicity and revelations, and purported more revelations, might be enough for those countries. Having said all that, I see no reason Russia has to be our permanent enemy, they share a common enemy in Islam, have vast resources for which we certainly have a market, generally historically share a faith close, if not same, as other European countries and the USA, and has enough space and technology to not, really, be threatened by foreign powers (except us, and now maybe China.) But it  seems almost everyone from each US major party wants it to be so for various reasons (everything from Obama not liking their innocuous laws against homosexuals to the neo-cons and Brzezinski-types wanting a new cold war and worrying about pipelines etc.) We lost a good opportunit(ies) to get Russia more on "our side" and even against China and instead we drive them together (at least for now) and allow the corruption of the "communist" system to become maybe even more corrupt by throwing money to them and ignoring the situation, expanding NATO (I'm not saying I was against this but could've been done in a better manner and even, maybe a way to bring Russia into it over time), supporting Muslims against Slavs and Christians, and treating them like children (a misspelled "reset button" stunt? Is this Sesame Street?)

Yes, two things
1.In so far as Snowden has promised to release everything and in so far as he was a low level employee (albeit one with extraordinary access to secret information) I doubt he has any secrets to tell the Russians beyond what he says he will release.  He may have told the Russians some things that he hasn't yet made public, but I don't doubt that Putin took Snowden in not to gain access to secrets, but simply to stick a needle in the eye of the United States.

2.Other than Putin enabler Prof Stephen Cohen and his circle of like minded friends (which likely includes FSB disinformation agents), I'm not aware of anybody making the claim that the United States would like to start a new cold war.  I don't even believe that the neo cons see any benefit in a new cold war with Russia. The cause of this new cold war is based on one person, and one person alone: Putin.

[albrecht]

Yes, two things
1.In so far as Snowden has promised to release everything and in so far as he was a low level employee (albeit one with extraordinary access to secret information) I doubt he has any secrets to tell the Russians beyond what he says he will release.  He may have told the Russians some things that he hasn't yet made public, but I don't doubt that Putin took Snowden in not to gain access to secrets, but simply to stick a needle in the eye of the United States.

2.Other than Putin enabler Prof Stephen Cohen and his circle of like minded friends (which likely includes FSB disinformation agents), I'm not aware of anybody making the claim that the United States would like to start a new cold war.  I don't even believe that the neo cons see any benefit in a new cold war with Russia. The cause of this new cold war is based on one person, and one person alone: Putin.

I won't defend Putin because he saw weakness and seized the opportunity to make domestic propaganda gains, but if you look at our machinations vis-a-vis the various Ossetias, Georgia, complaints about how they tried to handle Chechnya, and Ukraine (not to mention the earlier and still on-going stuff with fellow slavs in Kosovo, Serbia, etc) there is clearly some who still think Russia was/is the enemy even before this current mess and sanctions etc.  Even people like this character Obama commenting on innocuous laws Russia passed (which mimic laws some US states have and many other countries) against homosexuals during the run-up to the Olympics. The juvenile, and even misspelled, "reset button" farce was an insult. I would also include the machinations against Assad and even Iran (because they are Russian allies of sorts) in this. Supporting the likes that became ISIL/ISIS/SI in rhetoric, if not will $ and arms. Not that Assad, or Iran, are "good guys" but certainly better than these "springer" radicals now committing atrocity after atrocity that we, now after waiting a good while, fight- a bit.

Regarding Snowden, I agree that most likely it was just a stick-in-the-eye but, considering the system and his situation, I still won't think that, even inadvertently, he didn't give away some other secrets or that Russia etc gained some intel from him. Regarding Snowden and Manning I find interesting the "places" they decide to go and to whom to reveal secrets. And why such groups, like Wikileaks, seem to only be targeting US and European countries and companies? If they, I will include "anonymous" here also, really be about freedom- where are all the leaks about actual more repressive countries and organizations, what happened, anonymous, to that "fight" against drug cartels, etc?

[136 or 142]

I don't know this Manning. You mean the guy who was killed in either Iraq or Afghanistan? Or do you mean Julian Assange?

Genuinely confused.

[albrecht]

I don't know this Manning. You mean the guy who was killed in either Iraq or Afghanistan? Or do you mean Julian Assange?

Genuinely confused.

Bradley Manning, now known as Chelsea Manning. (He pulled a Bruce Jenner before it was cool.)
He did one of the big dumps to the Assange group Wikileaks.

[136 or 142]

Bradley Manning, now known as Chelsea Manning. (He pulled a Bruce Jenner before it was cool.)
He did one of the big dumps to the Assange group Wikileaks.

Oh right. I don't believe Manning sought asylum, whereas Assange did.

[albrecht]

Oh right. I don't believe Manning sought asylum, whereas Assange did.

No, but he/she probably wishes he/she did now though . I just mentioned it in terms of choices of places to flee or to whom to release information. I, although some good information is gained from it, am highly suspect of Assange and his organization. Cryptome I like also, but even just generally releasing to media, radio shows, torrents, websites, tor, etc could accomplish similar but it seems, maybe not true, that wikileaks, and maybe others, has an agenda that is not "helping the USA" or Western countries and companies but seems to be suspiciously lacking in "leaks" from countries/organizations with worse human rights records or corruption. I do like them offering a 'reward' for the TPP (etc etc other secret treaty agreements) but still have suspicions of them....when comes down to it, thinking too long, I can get all James Jesus Angleton-esque, wheels within wheels. So much disinfo, planned leaks, foreign actors, domestic actors, spies, contrary domestic aims between departments/entities, etc......

[3OctaveFart]

136 or 142-
Are you out of your fucking mind?
I attempted to have a discussion with you and you kept boringly belching forth what your teacher said in some intro course you once took. When you grew impatient you then hurled the first insult.
I'm a counterpuncher, not an attacker.
I'm done with you, have a nice week at summer school.

[136 or 142]

I attempted to have a discussion with you and you kept boringly belching forth what your teacher said in some intro course you once took.

I mentioned what my teacher said once and solely on what he said about Thatcher's incompetent handling of the Hong Kong file which I think nobody with intelligence would consider boring.

You then challenged his credentials as a China expert and I pointed out all the ways that he was far more of an expert than GHWB ever was.

I don't care if you are 'done with me' but I'd be much happier if you if done with posting on this board entirely.

[3OctaveFart]

Haha, not a chance. I love this place.
I know you sensitive libs would just rather have the echo chamber all to yourselves but it doesn't work that way.
(For future debates- nobody gives a shit what your professor said. Pass it on.)

[136 or 142]

Haha, not a chance. I love this place.
I know you sensitive libs would just rather have the echo chamber all to yourselves but it doesn't work that way.
(For future debates- nobody gives a shit what your professor said. Pass it on.)

1.You promised that you were 'done with me.' Can't you even keep a promise?

2.I have no problem with most of the other conservatives here, though, besides most of the comments from Albrecht besides his conspiracy theory based comments, I do find most of them to be either stupid or based on erroneous information, both of which are major afflictions of the modern conservative movement.

3.I would say simply 'speak for yourself' when it comes to how people may regard the views of my former professor, but you are actually correct.  As you are a nobody, at least one nobody doesn't 'give a shit' what my professor said.

You're so stupid you didn't even see that you completely set yourself up for that.

[3OctaveFart]

Uninformed people don't get to judge the value of others' ideas.
When you have an original thought you might even be worth engaging again.
I mean really, what a joke- steering a debate toward the fart vapors of your Poli Sci 200 professor.

[136 or 142]

Uninformed people don't get to judge the value of others' ideas.
When you have an original thought you might even be worth engaging again.
I mean really, what a joke- steering a debate toward the fart vapors of your Poli Sci 200 professor.

1.He is a Professor of Ancient and Modern Chinese History as well as a professor of Military History and Military Technology. I've never taken a poli sci course in my life. In addition to being  generally well read, he is a reader of Chinese, a frequent visitor to China and a well regarded Chinese Scholar. He is also a former officer in the Canadian Armed Forces.

2.Being uninformed or lacking an original thought hasn't stopped you from posting here, so why should be held to a higher standard?

Again, you walked right into it.

[3OctaveFart]

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Let me guess, your dad happens to share his views.

[136 or 142]

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Let me guess, your dad happens to share his views.

I don't know what that has to do with anything.  You said "nobody knows Chinese politics or policy better than GHWB" and I cited my former professor as one person who was likely far more an expert on China than GHWB ever was. In that case, his credentials and authority are entirely germane.


In regards to politicians being experts on China, I have no doubt that John Huntsman is a far greater expert, at least in some areas, than my former prof.

I never said anything about what my former professor said in regards to Bush's handling of the butchers of Bejing, and I've actually never heard him comment on it.

My views on how to treat China's increasing rogue status are entirely my own.  Though I heard on the news yesterday that Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer and a Republican colleague of his are proposing that China's currency not be allowed to be made a reserve currency until the Chinese government and/or its partners stop hacking into U.S government, private sector and probably even NGO computers, which is in line with what I proposed for how to deal with China.

If you disagree with any of this, I suggest you go to your father's room right now, wake him up and consult him on how to respond to my post.  At the very least, you could use some advice on how to not make statements that set yourself up.

[3OctaveFart]

I'll give George Senda a hundred dollars if YOU haven't purchased something made in China in the past 12 months. So in that time you have sponsored China's state cyberterrorism, its moral depredations and its assaults on peace internally and externally.

I'll wait for my answer on what exactly that item was until you get back from your Pentagon briefing.

[136 or 142]

I'll give George Senda a hundred dollars if YOU haven't purchased something made in China in the past 12 months. So in that time you have sponsored China's state cyberterrorism, its moral depredations and its assaults on peace internally and externally.

I'll wait for my answer on what exactly that item was until you get back from your Pentagon briefing.

Your argument is based on at least one logical fallacy, Kind of odd since you had earlier set yourself up as being something of an expert in logic.

Among others: the false dilemna fallacy and the appeal to emotion fallacy and there is at least one more whose name I can't think of.

While I'm sure I may have bought some food items that came from China, it in no way follows that this means that I have to support the Chinese government and nor does it mean that I can't also suggest that placing sanctions or other punitive actions on the Chinese government until they stop acting in a rogue manner,  this is especially so if I can't find those products from anywhere but China, and given the amount of manufacturing in China, it is also almost certain that even if I didn't buy any products labeled as made in China that I almost certainly bought products of which some of whose parts were made in China.

In so far as there is little I can do about either of these situations, while my culpability for enabling the Chinese government may not be zero, it is greatly reduced.

Of course, it is also rather obvious that my buying or not buying products made in China will have no impact on the Chinese government and short of organizing a mass boycott there is nothing I can do that would have an impact on them.

Again, since you seem to be such a lover of dictatorships and dictators I suggest you either move to a country governed by one or, at the very least, partake in the practices they promote.  Censoring yourself from posting on the internet would be a good place to start and I believe many people here besides myself would appreciate it.