Barack and Roll?

Report  
Wentz_Equals_Death (February 7, 2008)

the first barack president?

Report  
655321 (February 7, 2008)

Barack your socks off?

Report  
Dante3000 (rich) (February 7, 2008)

Wasn't he the guy from Mortal Kombat with knives on his hands?
-Dante

Report  
xthispoisonwellx (February 7, 2008)

"Barack the Vote" ..

Report  
Adlai_E_Stevenson (February 7, 2008)

Barakka, you mean.

I'd say "Barakka/Reptile '08", but they're third-runners at best to the Zero/Scorpion and Cage/Blade tickets.

Report  
655321 (February 7, 2008)

Yes, he would be the first barack president..... according to the asian population

Report  
xthispoisonwellx (February 7, 2008)

I LOL'd this

Report  
eran_zombis (February 7, 2008)

BA Barackas?

I 100% fuckin agree.

As much as I want him to win, it's still kinda hard for me to see it actually happening.

I agree, although i'll admit i could live (barely) with a Clinton administration.

Why do you want him to win? Can you name one thing that he has done that makes him qualified to be president? What exactly are these great ideas that he has?

Karl

Report  
jacknife737 (February 7, 2008)

I don't really think that somebody who lists their occupation as "Pimp" should be in a position to question another person's political preference.

Report  
NotPatriotic (February 7, 2008)

He is a black man. A fucking black man. 20 years ago no one would even consider a black man running for president. Its called progress. If anyone votes for John McCain over Obama they are idiots. It is called progress and change, it is good. I really don't care about politics because they are bullshit, but Obama winning would be sweet.

Report  
Autosuggestion (February 7, 2008)

Jesse Jackson ran for president 20 years ago. And one might argue that Dennis Kucinich, a white guy from Ohio, offers a far more progressive change than Alan Keyes.

I'd love to have a female president, but I'm sure as fuck not voting for Hillary Clinton.

Report  
NotPatriotic (February 7, 2008)

Jesse Jackson had absolutely no shot. It was kind of a gimmick of a campaign. I respect Jesse Jackson but he had no shot. Obama can fucking win. Progress. I have never voted before and I try to give as little information to the government as possible, but I think I may vote in this upcoming election.

Report  
Autosuggestion (February 7, 2008)

Absolutely no shot? There was a time during the 1988 campaign where he was considered the Democratic frontrunner. He won eleven states and utterly pwn3d Michigan. And he won five states in 1984. But yeah, sure, I get it. Obama has, perhaps, a better shot. I don't see that alone as substantial progress. Sure, the U.S. is in a different position than it was a hundred years ago and it's great that the two contenders for the Democrats are a black guy and a woman, but that speaks nothing about their actual politics.

Hooray for England for being progressive enough to elect Margaret Thatcher! Ummm... fuck no.

Report  
rob_rob (February 7, 2008)

yeah, who cares what he actually supports.

Report  
Guy_Incognito (February 7, 2008)

I fail to see how the fact that he is a black man means anything of great importance to the country.

This is not progress and change in itself is not a virtue. Progress is growing our economy another 5% and creating more jobs to put upward pressure on wages and standard of living.

That's great that doors are being opened for more people of all races but that's really a minor note compared to the big issues at hand. Him being black will not have any affect on how well you live in this new century.



Report  
NotPatriotic (February 8, 2008)

Politics are bullshit. You people fail to realize this. I just think it would be cool if a black guy won. It shows that the country has progressed in terms of acceptance.

Report  
damnitsderek (February 7, 2008)

If you're voting for him solely because of his race, then you shouldn't be voting in the first place.

Report  
dlangl4 (February 7, 2008)

"Progress" would be a candidate's race not mattering in the first place.

Report  
eran_zombis (February 7, 2008)

I dunno, his opposition to the war, NAFTA, agricultural subsidies and the Bush tax cuts help me out. If you're asking what separates him from Clinton, that would be electability.

I somewhat agree. I don't fully support him, but if it was down to him vs. Clinton or McCain, he'd definitely be the candidate I would root for.

It's going to be hard to pry the techno-metal fusion vote away from Alan Keyes.

Nicely played, sir.

It's the wide and shallow approach.

I can't tell if this is sarcastic... Being a senator from Illinois clearly helped him win Illinois.

Report  
Autosuggestion (February 7, 2008)

I think you're forgetting the fact that the event in Chicago featured DJ Whiteshadow spinning, while Wentz poured specialty shots called "The O-bomb(a)."

(yes, it was sarcastic)

at his finest hour
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDwwAaVmnf4

Report  
The4footpartysub (February 7, 2008)

well he just suspended his campaign...

Report  
NotPatriotic (February 7, 2008)

wow lol

Jesus, fuck Mitt Romney. G.I.-Joe-lookin' asshole.

is that sarcasm? romney is a fucking tool and that is a pretty insulting thing to say. saying what he said was NOT bowing out with class.
-nic

Report  
Autosuggestion (February 7, 2008)

It's pretty classy to put the country's safety and national security above personal interests.

(sigh.... yes, it was sarcasm).

Report  
listofdemands (February 7, 2008)

i don't really understand the whole idea of republicans thinking that national security is 100% theirs. it doesn't make sense to think that democrats are pussies. if you look at history, democrats have been the title holder on wars and battles. republicans barely have anything to support the idea that they are the authority on national security. especially considering that much of our military is halfway around the world leaving us open for anything. just saying.
-nic

Report  
listofdemands (February 7, 2008)

that post isn't really directed at you, just the idea of national security that neocons have.
-nic

Report  
Autosuggestion (February 7, 2008)

Yeah, I was joking. Clearly I think Romney is an absolute piece of shit and it's really reprehensible for him to say that by staying in the race and perhaps weakening the chances of a Republican win in November would be surrendering to terror. I expect we'll see a lot of disgusting "Wag the Dog" shit in the coming months.

I just saw this. I'm amazed.

I bet Romney wishes he had his 20 or 30 million dollars (or whatever ridiculous amount) he spent back

Report  
abrrock (February 7, 2008)

when candidates pull out of an election, what do they do with the campaign money they receive from outside donors?
i know mitt funded the majority of his campaign (jesus, what a rich mormon fuck), but surely he received monetary support for his campaign as well. does he have to give that shit back?

Report  
ArtieFufkin (February 7, 2008)

good question - not sure. i'm sure there are plenty of 'tax write offs' when it comes to this sort of thing. rich people hate to lose money.

Report  
eran_zombis (February 7, 2008)

$35 million. He could use other campaign donations to pay off his debt (although I don't know if he can pay himself back), and when he's out of debt, he has the choice to return it or donate, but he certainly isn't supposed to keep it.

Report  
Autosuggestion (February 7, 2008)

I think he'll be okay. He has literally hundreds of millions more.

Report  
Autosuggestion (February 7, 2008)

Also, he drummed up national recognition like Reagan in '76.

I still hate Huckabee more.

He cleaned up after constantly being haunted by the ghost of John Belushi.

Comedians without something up their nose aren't very funny.

I so wish I could go!

Pro Flag!

Report  
Wentz_Equals_Death (February 7, 2008)

simple & hilarious

maybe they'll move into teen angst and lyrical toilet humor.

Report  
damnitsderek (February 7, 2008)

So they'll become blink 182 version 2.0?

I have to imagine that Anti-Flag would have supported Kucinich until he dropped out and would now be more in line with Mike Gravel than Barack Obama, who is much closer to Hillary Clinton than Hugo Chavez or whatever the Clinton campaign or cable news channels might have you believe.

The shape of anti-flag to come...

http://www.punknews.org/review/1147

yeah fuck gays, immigrants and women. ron paul is the man!

Shut up shut up shut up.

Report  
Autosuggestion (February 7, 2008)

Show me a candidate not named Mike Gravel that's still in the race who doesn't oppose gay marriage.

All these other soft issues mean absolutely nothing in the long term success of the country.

Some people might argue that civil rights have something to do with it.

Report  
brangelina (February 7, 2008)

I'm gunning for Danzig/Michael Graves myself.

Report  
dlangl4 (February 7, 2008)

Why put a limit on the number of issues that can be "important" enough to discuss? I think all issues should be discussed.

You can't be fucking serious.

Agreeeeeeed. It's pathetic how all the candidates promise "change", but some are either for regression or just two steps forward.

I'm still a little on the fence about Obama. I think he has good intentions and visions, but you're right, he's pretty vague when he talks. Obviously, we need change and he talks about the promise and hope of our future, but how much substantial weight do those words really carry? I asked my parents who they are voting for and they said Hillary because she 'has experience'. I dunno - a big thing for me too is to wait and see who their running mates are.

Report  
Guy_Incognito (February 7, 2008)

I'm with you. I just hope that people don't vote for "hope", "change" and "experience" because those things have absolutely nothing to do with what a candidate actually plans to do to put the country in the right direction.

People really need to ask themselves what issues are truly of strategic importance to the country, not just what single issue tugs at their heartstrings. It bothers me that people have turned elections into a laundry list of what their government can do for them rather than asking politicians to present a long term vision for how our country can be relevent in the next century.

The world isn't the developed west and a bunch of scattered uncivilized tribes anymore.

Report  
Autosuggestion (February 7, 2008)

www.glassbooth.org

For a pretty easily accessible way to navigate through their policy disagreements and plans.

Report  
Guy_Incognito (February 7, 2008)
Well, I guess I have to respectively disagree. By strategic importance I'm trying to emphasize the necessity to have a strong manufacturing base in hard goods as it relates to standard of living and self sufficiency. It's not just about our ability to defend ourselves, but also our ability to maintain leverage on the global market for the benefit of our citizens. Right now we are losing that leverage to China and it is beginning to affect the lively hoods of lower class and middle class Americans.

But of course, the defense argument is also a valid one. Our industrial strength combined with our demographics is the only reason we prevailed against Germany and Japan. We weren't better warfighters, nor were we genetically superiour (as some yahoos might suggest). We won because we had the highest industrial output which was conveniently converted from producing cars t

show rest of commentWell, I guess I have to respectively disagree. By strategic importance I'm trying to emphasize the necessity to have a strong manufacturing base in hard goods as it relates to standard of living and self sufficiency. It's not just about our ability to defend ourselves, but also our ability to maintain leverage on the global market for the benefit of our citizens. Right now we are losing that leverage to China and it is beginning to affect the lively hoods of lower class and middle class Americans.

But of course, the defense argument is also a valid one. Our industrial strength combined with our demographics is the only reason we prevailed against Germany and Japan. We weren't better warfighters, nor were we genetically superiour (as some yahoos might suggest). We won because we had the highest industrial output which was conveniently converted from producing cars to producing B-17 bombers like the GM plant at Willow Run near Detroit.

Just because we don't have an existing threat doesn't mean we don't need to continously be prepared for the next centuries challenges. In the last two thousand years of human history, there has not been a single century without armed conflict between two or more major powers. Just because we have iPhone now doesn't mean that this trend is all of a sudden over.

But that's kind of besides the point, my main argument is economic. With economic power, we have a standard of living for our middle class. Our ability to wage war is only a side benefit that I'm not nearly as concerned about.

Have you even been to Pittsburgh? Part of my family is from there and several of them have a background in the steel industry...there is no steel industry in Pittsburg anymore. Many of the integrated mills in the United States have closed up shop and now we have to import a great quantity of steel putting our local material costs largely at the whims outside forces. The prices of mild steel have been at a historic high for the past 3 years which is inflationary for consumers and lowers our standard of living. The projected price for the next quarter is expected to grow atleast another 10%.

I took a tour of the largest integrated mill still in the US two years ago and it is pretty much a run down antiquated piece of junk compared to the high tech mills being built overseas.

I never said communism will be our biggest threat. I could care less what type of government people choose in other countries. The threat is that there is a nation of over 1 billion people with an authoritarian government that is building both their industrial and their military capabilities at an alarming rate in a similar fashion as the US back at the beginning of the 20th century. They are building steel mills, glass plants, and refineries at an astounding rate with a cruel efficiency towards the people that are being displaced even in their own country.

Don't you think that it's a bit alarming that China is well into developing a blue water navy? That isn't exactly a prerequisite for simply wanting to be a global trading partner of the US. I think you should look into it a bit more if you don't think that China is on the path to becoming a military threat. They have every intention of displacing the west as the world's superpower.

They are hardly a trading partner. It's simply a one way street. They send cheap manufactured goods to the US and we export both our technical knowledge and wealth back in the other direction. There are very few things that we ship to China. It works great for the powers that be in the US, because it enriches those who control the largest lobbys in DC. It doesn't work so great for everyone else including those who plan on inheriting this country one generation from now.

I know it sounds like an odd view perhaps, but just look at history if you will. China's trajectory is very typical as is it very typical for the world's largest power to make life miserable for those underneath it. I'd prefer that we remain that superpower. We can reign in our government through our vote to be benevolent leaders of the world as we often do. We do not hold the same sway over China's authoritarian government. When their economy eclipses ours in the next 50 years, there will be no one to restrain them. Certainly not their own citizens who have been successfully pacified for years through tight controls and a culture of obedience that is very unfamiliar to western types.

I did a quick google on the subject if you'd like an interesting read:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/mhelprin/?id=1100 06021

Report  
eran_zombis (February 7, 2008)
I just can't find a reason why China would fight a war with the West. I see China more as the aggressive little brother of post-war Japan. I also can't find a reason why Chinese economic growth harms the middle class of the US. I think a billion Chinese workers producing our favorite products more cheaply is beneficial. I agree that working conditions are not up to par, and their lax environmental standards are appalling, but China is hardly our biggest trading partner. What makes China different from India, Japan, Mexico? I believe Saudi Arabia owns about as much of our national debt as China. Is it their navy? They already have nuclear weapons. I just don't think trade hurts the middle class. Trade may cause manufacturing jobs to exit the country, but that's been happening for years, and I don't think we'll hit a point where borders reassert their importance and extensive protecti

show rest of commentI just can't find a reason why China would fight a war with the West. I see China more as the aggressive little brother of post-war Japan. I also can't find a reason why Chinese economic growth harms the middle class of the US. I think a billion Chinese workers producing our favorite products more cheaply is beneficial. I agree that working conditions are not up to par, and their lax environmental standards are appalling, but China is hardly our biggest trading partner. What makes China different from India, Japan, Mexico? I believe Saudi Arabia owns about as much of our national debt as China. Is it their navy? They already have nuclear weapons. I just don't think trade hurts the middle class. Trade may cause manufacturing jobs to exit the country, but that's been happening for years, and I don't think we'll hit a point where borders reassert their importance and extensive protectionism is the best option.
Report  
jacknife737 (February 7, 2008)
" just can't find a reason why China would fight a war with the West"

Ok i'm going to play partial devil's advocate here. Now, its not that i think ww3 is going to happen tomorrow, which is absurd. China’s future is still a very much open question, and as many academics and liberal-critical theorists have attempted to prove China’s ‘rise’ will probably be very peaceful; however there are still potentials for a military conflict between China/US/Japan/India other various pacific rim countries. .

Essentially, by the year 2025 China will have completely modernized its military, not to mention it is emerging as an emerging superpower and desires to take its ‘rightful’ (and some would say deserved) place as a word power. The source of a potential conflict with the US deals with China building military bases along a route connecting it to the Middle East, which

show rest of comment" just can't find a reason why China would fight a war with the West"

Ok i'm going to play partial devil's advocate here. Now, its not that i think ww3 is going to happen tomorrow, which is absurd. China’s future is still a very much open question, and as many academics and liberal-critical theorists have attempted to prove China’s ‘rise’ will probably be very peaceful; however there are still potentials for a military conflict between China/US/Japan/India other various pacific rim countries. .

Essentially, by the year 2025 China will have completely modernized its military, not to mention it is emerging as an emerging superpower and desires to take its ‘rightful’ (and some would say deserved) place as a word power. The source of a potential conflict with the US deals with China building military bases along a route connecting it to the Middle East, which eventually will come into confrontation with the US 7th Fleet,t he most powerful fleet ever assemebled.

Lets not even touch on the whole Taiwan situation, or Sino-Japanese relations……

Report  
jacknife737 (February 7, 2008)

silly grammatical errors....

Report  
victim (February 7, 2008)

After WWII, Great Britain lapsed into about the same standards of living as Peru or Portugal. Their Empire, and the time of national colonialism, was unequivocally over. They only really recovered by becoming a dingleberry on the ass of the US.

What are we witnessing now but the same thing happening again? Oh, there'll be more wars but as always it will involve the inter-rivalries and competitions within Capital.

Report  
eran_zombis (February 7, 2008)

While I don't think a land war with China would happen, I do take issue with china's support of Iran and Sudan.

Report  
dlangl4 (February 7, 2008)

I'm not arguing against you, but are you saying you want to actually prevent China from becoming a world superpower (among the US and the other minor ones), or prevent China from becoming the sole world superpower?

I definately think China will become a global superpower if they aren't already. I also think China, once they surprass the US economically, will not try to become the sole superpower. They'll want to cooperate and keep making more money. Why wouldn't they?

So no, I don't think they stand to become the *only* superpower. The West will simply not let that happen. And I don't think either side wants to fight a war over it.

Report  
jacknife737 (February 7, 2008)

No, i was merely proposing a situation in which China and the US (and potentially other counties) could be drawn into a conflict with one another. In retrospect I suppose I should have worded it a little better, but alas, this site still is lacking an edit function.


Report  
dlangl4 (February 8, 2008)

That war could certainly happen.

Report  
victim (February 7, 2008)

US manufacturing didn't win WWII -- Soviet manufacturing did.

Report  
Guy_Incognito (February 7, 2008)

You do realize there was a Pacific theater to the war that the Soviets didn't largely participate in right?

Report  
victim (February 7, 2008)

Look at the inferior quality of what the US produced relative to what the USSR was churning out. Consider what % of the 30,000 casualties were Russians..

HINT: it was more than the Jews

Report  
victim (February 8, 2008)

30 million, not 30 thousand obviously

I. China is not a Communist country. Remember 1989? Tiananmen?

2. Healthcare is not a "soft" issue

3. Industrialization is never going to return on the same qualitative level that it left on. Maybe if/when nano-technology reaches large scale feasability.

4. There are no "hip intellectuals" -- thats just a sub-strata of assholes.

5. Reach some Malcolm -- you're post is interspersed with us's, we's and them's. Who's "us"? Who's "them"? Whaddya mean "we"?

6. Can't talk about Imperialism in 2008 without mentioning Iraq (not that Iraq covers the issue). Of course its important

7. What is the Obama phenomenon? Easy, its the empty rhetoric of an empty suit appealing to empty minds.

Report  
Guy_Incognito (February 7, 2008)
I. China is not a Communist country. Remember 1989? Tiananmen?

Please explain, last time I checked it's still ruled by the Communist Party of China and the People's Liberation Army.

2. Healthcare is not a "soft" issue

Healthcare is a product with a cost. Without a strong middle class generating wealth, we have no ability to afford it regardless of government intervention. The government can't just "grant" it without having a society that generates enough value to sustain it. In that sense It's a soft issue compared to the overall status of the economy. This issue is only coming to roost now that high paying middle class jobs are becoming less and less available.

3. Industrialization is never going to return on the same qualitative level that it left on. Maybe if/when nano-technology reaches large scale feasability.

Wel

show rest of commentI. China is not a Communist country. Remember 1989? Tiananmen?

Please explain, last time I checked it's still ruled by the Communist Party of China and the People's Liberation Army.

2. Healthcare is not a "soft" issue

Healthcare is a product with a cost. Without a strong middle class generating wealth, we have no ability to afford it regardless of government intervention. The government can't just "grant" it without having a society that generates enough value to sustain it. In that sense It's a soft issue compared to the overall status of the economy. This issue is only coming to roost now that high paying middle class jobs are becoming less and less available.

3. Industrialization is never going to return on the same qualitative level that it left on. Maybe if/when nano-technology reaches large scale feasability.

Well, it already is...overseas in China.

4. There are no "hip intellectuals" -- thats just a sub-strata of assholes.

Ok

5. Reach some Malcolm -- you're post is interspersed with us's, we's and them's. Who's "us"? Who's "them"? Whaddya mean "we"?

Fine, I'll play the semantics game
We = The USA
Us = The West
Them = Other competing world powers

6. Can't talk about Imperialism in 2008 without mentioning Iraq (not that Iraq covers the issue). Of course its important

What's your point? Iraq is the biggest waste of time, money and lives since Vietnam. I'm not trying to argue that point.

7. What is the Obama phenomenon? Easy, its the empty rhetoric of an empty suit appealing to empty minds.

I agree? Again, what's your point?
Report  
eran_zombis (February 7, 2008)

China is hardly Communist. It would be better labeled as "highly centralized mercantilism." Any nation with Wal-Mart isn't communist in my book, or would it be in Marx's, or in Trotsky's. Actually, many of Marx's books would take extreme issue with China's economic practices.

Report  
victim (February 7, 2008)

If people's well being is a product, then you might as well extend the same reasoning to food and water. Without a middle class generating enough value to 'sustain it" no one eats. Seems like someone has rather self-servingly stuck the phrase "middle class" in there..

Excuse me if I don't prioritize the holy "middle class" above people's lives

Secondly, whatever WE you're talking about doesn't include me or alot of other people in this country. Your them is equally fictitious. Do the women wokring in RMG factories count as part of this monolith economic threat you call China? Its not semantics.

As for semantics, the Chinese government is controlled by CPC and so thus is "communist". Thats like saying we're a Republic while Republicans are in office and a Democracy while Democrats are in office..



Report  
Guy_Incognito (February 8, 2008)
Don't get so upset about it.

Yeah, I absolutely will include food and water as a product. You can't "will" these things into existance. They are all the result of the productivity of workers. If we can't produce enough economic good to even eat...then people will starve. That's not my opinion, that's just economic fact.

The western world only has the healthcare that it does because our vast wealth and high productivity that allows us to afford that. The government can't just grant this, it has to actually be produced. The government can only grant healthcare insofar as the nation it represents can afford it. So yes, I believe the strength of the economy, with the middle class being the majority of that economic output, is a superiour issue to healthcare because it begets our ability to have it.

We includes you whether you are aware of

show rest of commentDon't get so upset about it.

Yeah, I absolutely will include food and water as a product. You can't "will" these things into existance. They are all the result of the productivity of workers. If we can't produce enough economic good to even eat...then people will starve. That's not my opinion, that's just economic fact.

The western world only has the healthcare that it does because our vast wealth and high productivity that allows us to afford that. The government can't just grant this, it has to actually be produced. The government can only grant healthcare insofar as the nation it represents can afford it. So yes, I believe the strength of the economy, with the middle class being the majority of that economic output, is a superiour issue to healthcare because it begets our ability to have it.

We includes you whether you are aware of it or not. You sink and swim with everyone else.

Ok, let me clarify "them" further. I mean the people in control of the monolith of a country that is China. Happy?

As for comparing the CPC and Republicans...well that's just nuts. The Republicans are one of the competing major parties in our government. The CPC is the sole controlling political party in China and they have no intention of allowing other parties to compete for their position nor are they democratically elected. I don't even know how you can compare the two with a straight face.

The only valid argument you could make is that China is not true communism in its pure sense. That I can buy, but that is besides the point I'm trying to make. It's the nature of their government that concerns me and how it has acted, not what tag you want to put on it. My family has been over there several times and witnessed the slavery and environmental destruction first hand.



Report  
dlangl4 (February 7, 2008)
"Please explain, last time I checked it's still ruled by the Communist Party of China and the People's Liberation Army."

The Chinese government is still technically Communist. But don't look at their entire country as being that. Look at their government's architecture as that, and their coastal economy as on-the-way towards being all out capitalism, especially the areas of the major coastal cities.

I'm not sure about mainland China. It's probably still really bad there.

So yeah, the ruling party still functions like the old Chinese Communism within itself, and they express themselves over the county as such. But regarding the economy, it's anything but.

OH and don't forget that any recent form of Chinese Communism has never come close to being anything like "real" theoretical Communism. It's always been Communism with "Chinese characteristi

show rest of comment"Please explain, last time I checked it's still ruled by the Communist Party of China and the People's Liberation Army."

The Chinese government is still technically Communist. But don't look at their entire country as being that. Look at their government's architecture as that, and their coastal economy as on-the-way towards being all out capitalism, especially the areas of the major coastal cities.

I'm not sure about mainland China. It's probably still really bad there.

So yeah, the ruling party still functions like the old Chinese Communism within itself, and they express themselves over the county as such. But regarding the economy, it's anything but.

OH and don't forget that any recent form of Chinese Communism has never come close to being anything like "real" theoretical Communism. It's always been Communism with "Chinese characteristics."
Report  
dlangl4 (February 7, 2008)

I didn't see your long reply above where you addressed what you meant by "threat", so nevermind that.

" to an authoritarian communist country that will likely be our biggest threat twenty years from now."

Why do you think China is going to be our biggest threat twenty years from now? I'd say China is going to be one of our good friends 20 years from now, or even 5 years from now.

Imagine two corporations working side by side to make as much money as possible. There's the US / China's economic relationship when reduced to one sentence. China and the United States care a lot more about making money then going to war.

Why would we go to war, or in your words, how would they be the US's biggest threat?

Report  
Guy_Incognito (February 8, 2008)
They will be our biggest threat in that there is active competition for resources and influence today as there has been throughout history. China's policies towards the west are based on extraction of western wealth and technology rather than a mutual cooperation.

For instance, no foreign corporation is allowed to do business in China without having a 51% partnership with a state owned Chinese company. The benefit to China is that they maintain ownership and control and can get all of the technology up until they are ready to dump the minority 49% foreign partner. The only reason foreign companies buy into this scam is because it means short term profits which in turn boost share price and raise executive compensation. The average tenure of a CEO is only a few years. They are hardly concerned about the health of a company 10 years down the road. All of the

show rest of commentThey will be our biggest threat in that there is active competition for resources and influence today as there has been throughout history. China's policies towards the west are based on extraction of western wealth and technology rather than a mutual cooperation.

For instance, no foreign corporation is allowed to do business in China without having a 51% partnership with a state owned Chinese company. The benefit to China is that they maintain ownership and control and can get all of the technology up until they are ready to dump the minority 49% foreign partner. The only reason foreign companies buy into this scam is because it means short term profits which in turn boost share price and raise executive compensation. The average tenure of a CEO is only a few years. They are hardly concerned about the health of a company 10 years down the road. All of these partnerships will eventually be dismantled and all of our technology will be basically given up to our competition.

Another example is China's manipulation of their currency. Every other currency in the world is valued based on a market. China's currency is pegged to a basket of currencies artificially which ensures that Chinese goods will always be the cheapest and most competitive. It's basically like a roundabout subsidy that gives American companies no chance to compete nor ship product into China. Does this sound like a cooperative relationship?

Finally, the world really hasn't seen too many cooperative relationships amongst superpowers. Particularly not authoritarian governments like China who posses the demographics to eventually dictate the terms of the relationship once their economy eclipses ours. It would not be reasonable to expect them to be "fair" with us once they hold all the leverage considering how unfair their practicies are now even when we still have the majority of the leverage.


Report  
dlangl4 (February 8, 2008)
I agree with your first three paragraphs.

For the fourth paragraph:

"It would not be reasonable to expect them to be "fair" with us once they hold all the leverage considering how unfair their practicies are now even when we still have the majority of the leverage."

Like you mentioned in the previous paragraphs, by "us" you mean the West. Not just the United States. Regardless of China's economic or military might in the future, the West is in this together. The United States will/would not have to face China's aggression alone (whether it be economic or military aggression). I can't imagine the other Western nations even wanting the US to have to deal with China alone. It just isn't in Western interest.

In other words, if China started trying to not "be fair" with the US or the West, the entire West would oppose them. It won't

show rest of commentI agree with your first three paragraphs.

For the fourth paragraph:

"It would not be reasonable to expect them to be "fair" with us once they hold all the leverage considering how unfair their practicies are now even when we still have the majority of the leverage."

Like you mentioned in the previous paragraphs, by "us" you mean the West. Not just the United States. Regardless of China's economic or military might in the future, the West is in this together. The United States will/would not have to face China's aggression alone (whether it be economic or military aggression). I can't imagine the other Western nations even wanting the US to have to deal with China alone. It just isn't in Western interest.

In other words, if China started trying to not "be fair" with the US or the West, the entire West would oppose them. It won't just be the US standing alone or France or whatever Western nation standing alone. The West would act as a team under such circumstances (in my opinion).

So I don't think China will ever be able to take on the entire West and just start bullying our entire half of the world around. Why would "we" ever let that happen?

Would China like to rule over the West? Probably. Will this half of the world let that happen without mutually destroying us all? I don't think so.

China will be a superpower in the future. So will the West. We can either get along and trade or we can fight or sole title of the world's superpower. What do you think?

(Oh, and obviously when I say "never" or "ever," I mean like the next 50 years or so, and if the global situation progresses as it is expected and whatnot.)
Report  
dlangl4 (February 8, 2008)

Typo: "we can fight FOR sole title"

Report  
eran_zombis (February 8, 2008)

agree - especially about agriculture/not eating meat.

Sarcasm? Or is that you Sean Hannity?

To paraphrase his Iraq policy, it’s essentially to remove around 1-2 brigades per month to have all combat forces out of Iraq within 16 months

Report  
Guy_Incognito (February 7, 2008)

That's not really much of a plan. That's pretty much just saying "Fuck 'em, let's give ourselves enough time to move all the equipment and then get the hell out".

Boy will that be a pretty place in a few years.

he said it was a mistake, which sucked, he should have not apologized for it. plus he supports the War on Drugs

Report  
fallingupwards84 (February 7, 2008)

i just realized you were talking about cigarettes; thought you were speaking of marijuana

He quit smoking about a year ago. And even then he generally only smoked three to five cigarettes a day and had quit a few times in the past.

Obama has been fairly clear about outlining a plan for Iraq. You just don't get much more than a few bulletin points from the debates. But it's out there. Read up.

I don't know any of those bands and don't care for Obama but it sounds like you had a fucking blast and I'm envious.