• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

O'Donnell said China plotting to take over US

Think out of the box....

I think the reason that all admins since Nixon have suffered from a certain amount of flawed thinking.....I think our rationale was that if we open up Chinese markets to OUR goods, we'll sell lots of stuff and make money. When exposed to our culture and our consumer products, communism will fall. We didn't foresee their version of socialized capitalism and that the planners have also fallen into the trap that the more business we do with them, the less capability they will have to fight a war with us without hurting themselves.

As I stated before, that ignores history, and it also ignores their ability to take hits. If 1,000,000 people starve to death in China because of a glitch in their economy, do you think they (the leaders) will really care when their population is 1,306,313,812? Or will they see it as a silver lining since their population is already too large?

So you're still completely ignoring the fact of a little something called NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

And are basicaly continuing this conversation for the sake of it. Not taking MAD into account...

Live in your own world. Whatever dude.
 
So you're still completely ignoring the fact of a little something called NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

And are basicaly continuing this conversation for the sake of it. Not taking MAD into account...

Live in your own world. Whatever dude.

Study your history. Nations start out young, small and energetic. They either expand and conquer the nations around them through military conquest, IMMIGRATION and ASSIMILATION, or merger, or suffer that same fate. As a nation ages, it eventually slows. It may grow rich and bloated, or slow and weak. Eventually, a younger, stronger nation will succeed in supplanting it.

At some point, a government consider's it's survival and power to be of greater importance than that of its citizen's or subjects.

Drop it down and you see the same thing with corporations. Our constitution is the only thing that has kept some controls on the government and kept us from sliding into a dictatorship and eventual revolution. Corporations are constrained only by the power of laws and the ability of the government to fine, tax or criminally & civilly prosecute the management.

With this as premise, look another look at China. "China" is old, but the People's Republic of China is not. At the beginning of the 20th Century, China was a backward nation that couldn't control its borders or its economy and was subject to the whims of the "Great Powers". Japan, a nation with a far smaller population, was able to conquer large parts of China and probably could have completed the job if not for US intervention.

The People's Republic of China took over in 1949 and commenced a total rebuilding of the country. Something that has gone through a couple of evolutions along the way. The Chinese consider their culture to be superior to all others. The leadership may publicly decry the old age of the emperors, but they've simply changed names and stepped into their place. They maintain the old Chinese position that they are the center of the world and everyone else are barbarians. They are still working to overcome the humiliation of the last century when barbarians dictated what happened in China, and the perception that China is/was a 3rd world country and is inferior to the west.

China also takes a long term view of the world, history and the future. They will continue to do business with the US and other western nations because it brings capital into the country, which they need to continue the modernization of the country. But when they believe they no longer need us and the opportunity has arrived, they will strike against us.

Get back to the government as an organism. Modern Chinese history is full of proof that the lives of their citizens are not important to the government. They slaughtered millions in the cultural revolution. They had not problem killing protesters in Tiananmen Square. Prisoners labor in slave labor camps and when they die or are executed, their organs are harvested. The Chinese government is perfectly willing to trade the lives of millions of their people in a nuclear war with the US if they think it will result in the ascension of China and the fall of the US.

Think out of the box, dude. You are too narrow minded
 
Last edited:
Study your history. Nations start out young, small and energetic. They either expand and conquer the nations around them through military conquest, IMMIGRATION and ASSIMILATION, or merger, or suffer that same fate. As a nation ages, it eventually slows. It may grow rich and bloated, or slow and weak. Eventually, a younger, stronger nation will succeed in supplanting it.

At some point, a government consider's it's survival and power to be of greater importance than that of its citizen's or subjects.

Drop it down and you see the same thing with corporations. Our constitution is the only thing that has kept some controls on the government and kept us from sliding into a dictatorship and eventual revolution. Corporations are constrained only by the power of laws and the ability of the government to fine, tax or criminally & civilly prosecute the management.

With this as premise, look another look at China. "China" is old, but the People's Republic of China is not. At the beginning of the 20th Century, China was a backward nation that couldn't control its borders or its economy and was subject to the whims of the "Great Powers". Japan, a nation with a far smaller population, was able to conquer large parts of China and probably could have completed the job if not for US intervention.

The People's Republic of China took over in 1949 and commenced a total rebuilding of the country. Something that has gone through a couple of evolutions along the way. The Chinese consider their culture to be superior to all others. The leadership may publicly decry the old age of the emperors, but they've simply changed names and stepped into their place. They maintain the old Chinese position that they are the center of the world and everyone else are barbarians. They are still working to overcome the humiliation of the last century when barbarians dictated what happened in China, and the perception that China is/was a 3rd world country and is inferior to the west.

China also takes a long term view of the world, history and the future. They will continue to do business with the US and other western nations because it brings capital into the country, which they need to continue the modernization of the country. But when they believe they no longer need us and the opportunity has arrived, they will strike against us.

Get back to the government as an organism. Modern Chinese history is full of proof that the lives of their citizens are not important to the government. They slaughtered millions in the cultural revolution. They had not problem killing protesters in Tiananmen Square. Prisoners labor in slave labor camps and when they die or are executed, their organs are harvested. The Chinese government is perfectly willing to trade the lives of millions of their people in a nuclear war with the US if they think it will result in the ascension of China and the fall of the US.

Think out of the box, dude. You are too narrow minded

Think outside the box?

I think you're thinking inside a thimble...

So you're ignoring MAD completely, and think that both countries completely wiping eachother off the face of the Earth, somehow means that China will emerge ahead.... completely destroyed and uninhabitable...

What?
 
When all you've got is a hammer ...

ric's way out of his league on this topic, but he'll never admit it. :roll:

LOl, jump in dude and lets see what you have
 
Think outside the box?

I think you're thinking inside a thimble...

So you're ignoring MAD completely, and think that both countries completely wiping eachother off the face of the Earth, somehow means that China will emerge ahead.... completely destroyed and uninhabitable...

What?

The people and businessmen of China have no real strength or ability to affect the Chinese government. That entity will allow them to play around at a semblance of a free market for as long as it benefits the government. When it comes time to tackle the US, the economic disruption and deaths will be considered acceptable, a cost of doing business.

There is only one thing that will keep this from happening. If we maintain a military and technological superiority such that they don't think they can pull if off, then they will wait. If they ever get to the point that they think they can get around or defeat our technology, they will.
 
The GOP had a bona-fide opportunity to take over the Senate, and blew it, with the selections of O'Donnell, Angle, and Fiorina.

so you're conceding NEVADA, now, too?

and fio, who's that better candidate than fio you're referencing?

2010 Will be seen as the year that Republicans pulled defeat out of the jaws of victory.

an historic pick up of EIGHT SEATS upstairs and goodness know how many on pelosi's temporary carpet is defeat from jaws?

don't let the big stuff obscure your microscopic view

2012 will be the year of the Republican takeover of both houses of Congress

can you tell us the margins?

The term "Social Conservative" is an oxymoron.

nonsense

Mike Castle was a winner

LOL!

sure, that's why he lost to a whack job from nowhere, 47 to 53, in a red primary in blue hen country that saw gop turnout increase 400% over the last offyear primary

now, on the flip side of the coin, never forget, there's mr coons, who once indicated he "was distrustful of american power and willing to question the american notion of free enterprise," who came to see "that the ideal of america as a beacon of freedom and justice, providing hope for the world was not exactly based in reality,” who discovered "that [his] own favorite beliefs in the miracles of free enterprise and the boundless opportunities to be had in america were largely untrue”

Coons took 'bearded Marxist' turn - Alex Isenstadt - POLITICO.com

remember, all that conventional thinking (LOL!) that had mr castle a sure butt in biden's bench is the same that saw the 71 year old ultimate insider (who met with obama and biden the day after he lost) wasting the witch

bottom line---for opposition, coming close is good enough

seeya at the polls, rhinos
 
Last edited:
LOl, jump in dude and lets see what you have
I have better things to do than cast pearls before swine, "dude."

Go get fluent in Chinese and maybe we'll plumb the depths of your ignorance on the subject. Until then I will not waste my energy debating what Chinese think with someone whose sum total of knowledge in the area is whatever was written on the slip of paper inside his fortune cookie when he last got carry-out shrimp fried rice.

"LOL" indeed. That would be me sitting here listening to the American ghosts waxing eloquent on something they don't know **** about.
 
I have better things to do than cast pearls before swine, "dude."

Go get fluent in Chinese and maybe we'll plumb the depths of your ignorance on the subject. Until then I will not waste my energy debating what Chinese think with someone whose sum total of knowledge in the area is whatever was written on the slip of paper inside his fortune cookie when he last got carry-out shrimp fried rice.

"LOL" indeed. That would be me sitting here listening to the American ghosts waxing eloquent on something they don't know **** about.

I read in this book by Matt Taibi(The Great Derangement, great read for poli sci-junkies BTW) that some people can only propel their rhetoric by creating entire myths. Usually this rhetoric fails horribly as the only people who listen to you are people as wacked out as the preachers. But on very rare occasions you get a 'mainstream' political figure advocating a conspiracy that is out there but yet manages to enamor supporters of all stripes.

Seriously, it takes a person who has no understanding of politics to say that the Chinese want to invade us. Even though the economic consequences of war would actually benefit the U.S. - put it this way, if the Chinese ever decide to bomb us, we'll no longer give much of a **** about the ridiculous debt we have with them.
 
You should be glad we've almost forgot about picking on the negroes.

The elections are coming so I know for a fact every white person that gets elected will have somehow benefited from Obama's affirmative action.
 
I have better things to do than cast pearls before swine, "dude."

Go get fluent in Chinese and maybe we'll plumb the depths of your ignorance on the subject. Until then I will not waste my energy debating what Chinese think with someone whose sum total of knowledge in the area is whatever was written on the slip of paper inside his fortune cookie when he last got carry-out shrimp fried rice.

"LOL" indeed. That would be me sitting here listening to the American ghosts waxing eloquent on something they don't know **** about.

So, you ain't got nuthin'....sad :(

Well, at least you have, the basement down below :peace
 
I don't think that it is a stretch of the imagination to say that China already exercises an unhealthy level of economic power over the U.S. thanks to our spending addiction.
 
I read in this book by Matt Taibi(The Great Derangement, great read for poli sci-junkies BTW) that some people can only propel their rhetoric by creating entire myths. Usually this rhetoric fails horribly as the only people who listen to you are people as wacked out as the preachers. But on very rare occasions you get a 'mainstream' political figure advocating a conspiracy that is out there but yet manages to enamor supporters of all stripes.

Seriously, it takes a person who has no understanding of politics to say that the Chinese want to invade us. Even though the economic consequences of war would actually benefit the U.S. - put it this way, if the Chinese ever decide to bomb us, we'll no longer give much of a **** about the ridiculous debt we have with them.

Really? Not THE Matt Taibbi? .... You mean this Matt Taibbi?

In March 2005, Taibbi wrote a column for New York Press, entitled "The 52 Funniest Things About the Upcoming Death of the Pope".[13] The column was denounced by Senator Hillary Clinton, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Matt Drudge, and Abe Foxman, among others, including Congressman Anthony Weiner who suggested that New Yorkers throw copies of that issue of the magazine in the trash. The editor who approved the column was suspended, and resigned.[14] In a subsequent column entitled "Keep Pope Alive", Taibbi defended the controversial piece as "an off-the-cuff burlesque of Truly Tasteless Jokes," which he said was designed to give readers a break from a long run of "fulminating political essays" in his column space. In a written response, Taibbi said " 'The 52 Funniest Things About the Upcoming Death of the Pope' " had almost nothing to do with the pope or Catholics whatsoever, and certainly wasn't hate speech. If there was hate in the piece, it was not for the pope but for the agonizing marathon of mechanized media grief and adulation we so inevitably go through after the passing of each and every hallowed leader or celebrity." In the same response he expressed surprise at the strong response for a piece that he had "written in the waning hours of a Vicodin haze."[15]

In a 2010 Vanity Fair article chronicling the demise of the eXile, journalist James Verini alleges that Taibbi cursed at him and threw a coffee in his face after being told The Exile: Sex, Drugs, and Libel in the New Russia was "redundant and discursive." Verini maintains that the incident took place in a crowded Manhattan restaurant during lunchtime and that after storming out Taibbi further accosted him on the street.[16]

Matt Taibbi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


And liberals love to say that conservatives live in an echo chamber of their own ideas......


j-mac
 
I'm really losing all faith in our government at all. If bat**** insane idiots like her can actually get elected, there is something seriously wrong here.
 
Actually, China stated a long time ago that they were planning on a war with the US. They are still doing that. If you want a minor example of that, look at their small arms development. Their new infantry rifle cartridge optimizes armor penetration at the expense of soft tissue disruption. Please take a look at the nations that surround China and see who issues body armor on a widespread basis. The answer of course, is none. Who does? The US.

China, like any other state on a trajectory toward great power status, is seeking to improve its offensive and defensive capabilities. That it is matching itself against other great powers (Russia and the U.S.) for contextual purposes is no surprise. What would be a surprise would be if the U.S. were simply resting content with existing body protection technology rather than aggressively seeking to remain ahead of the innovation curve.
 
I'm really losing all faith in our government at all. If bat**** insane idiots like her can actually get elected, there is something seriously wrong here.

What's wrong is that you libs thought you had carte blanc with the government, and started going absolutely crazy with policy, now you will pay the price for not only your arrogance, but for your subversion.


j-mac
 
What's wrong is that you libs thought you had carte blanc with the government, and started going absolutely crazy with policy, now you will pay the price for not only your arrogance, but for your subversion.


j-mac

You think RIVER is a liberal?

bwahahahahhahahahahhahahahahhahaahhahahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahaahahahahhaahhahaahahah.

Ouch. That hurt my ribs.
 
You think RIVER is a liberal?

bwahahahahhahahahahhahahahahhahaahhahahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahaahahahahhaahhahaahahah.

Ouch. That hurt my ribs.

I don't know for sure, so I have to go by what is posted....However, if she had the conviction of her beliefs, and stood firm in them it would be no problem to have something other than "undisclosed" as her political affiliation.

j-mac
 
I don't know for sure, so I have to go by what is posted....However, if she had the conviction of her beliefs, and stood firm in them it would be no problem to have something other than "undisclosed" as her political affiliation.

j-mac

Yeah, that makes sense.













/sarcasm
 
I don't know for sure, so I have to go by what is posted....However, if she had the conviction of her beliefs, and stood firm in them it would be no problem to have something other than "undisclosed" as her political affiliation.

j-mac
Yeah, because someone's listed political affiliation is so important.
 
What's wrong is that you libs thought you had carte blanc with the government, and started going absolutely crazy with policy, now you will pay the price for not only your arrogance, but for your subversion.


j-mac

Did you ****ing seriously just call me a liberal?
 
Back
Top Bottom