posted
A vote for Sen. Clinton is a vote for the Clintonistas to gain control of America. I hope I am joking.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Technically speaking I did not talk about nazism but rather the doctrine of appeasment when it comes to dictators.
I don't know, Neville Chamberlain is pretty specific.
I mean, I obviously agree that the war on terror is important, though like you, I am also attracted to Obama despite his stance on the war. It's because I believe him that he always opposed it to the degree that it would be responsible for an elected official to do so.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: 1920's Imperial China?
Sorry, it was a reference to emperor Pu Yi being established as a puppet of the Japanese empire and him urging the Chinese to join Manchukuo in welcoming Japanese "assistance" in their affairs.
edit: I should have written 1930's but I feel like the folks in Chinese government who wanted to try to stay out of the way of Japan's no behavior and instead deal with the communists first, precedes that decade.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, I probably wouldn't have voted for him, but I'm really surprised that his campaign turned out this way. There was a time when I thought he'd easily win the nomination.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: From the AP article:
quote:"If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror,"
:shakes fist:
This type of language is precisely why I will not support the GOP this election.
quote:Were you being facetious? If not, I hope you realize that both Obama and Clinton say they favor a withdrawal schedule from Iraq. Their language of getting out is equally as strong as the Republican talk of staying in.
The problem with the language Romney used is that he seems to be equating the democratic process with aiding terrorism.
Oh, come on. You have to know that's not true. He's equating the Democratic candidates with a philosophy of appeasement and surrender.
You, on the other hand, are equating the Democratic candidates with the democratic process. I disagree.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Uuhhhmmmm Blackblade, the Qing empire collapsed in 1911 with the founding of the Republic of China. Which never could control more then a quarter of the country so it makes a tad amount of sense why they could never offer serious resistence to Japan when the rest of the world could care less.
IP: Logged |
posted
BlackBlade: Oh, I just didn't know what you were referring to. I thought you meant either the earlier Qing agreements with Japan (i.e. earlier than 1911) or the Nationalist agreements (i.e. not Imperial). Most people probably would not refer to Puyi's puppet government as "China" at any point which is why it did not come to my mind. (Arguably, it wasn't particularly imperial in anything but name either)
Blayne Bradley: For the record, I use gVim daily too Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Someone said McCain or the Wilderness for Conservative Republicans. I choose wilderness because in four years that opens Romney up for another chance instead of possibly 8 years. As I have said, McCain is someone I loath both for his views and his personality. Trust me, if Democrats pick Obama then they might (ready to gasp) get my vote for him as President. He at least comes across as a likeable guy. Where I don't like the views of either candidate I guess personality is the only deciding factor.
And yes, if Hillery gets the nod then I won't vote this year. It won't be the first time as an adult I didn't.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have heard speculation that this might mean a loosening of the iron grip on Mormons the Republicans have enjoyed.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:No, he like many Republicans think the Democrats are going to be too soft on terrorism especially if Clinton is elected. So helping the Democrats win in 08 to many of them is like a vote for Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain of "appeasment" fame.
Perhaps, but it would still be absurd to suggest that doing anything which might, even indirectly, help get Chamberlain elected is equivalent to aiding the Nazis.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I like Obama better because he talks about getting the Iraqi government to step up, while Clinton says things like, "I'll have them all out in 90 days."
I actually think that Clinton has been saying she wants to START bringing them home within 90 days, not have them all home- huge difference. But I could be wrong.
Posts: 46 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
A fun spellcheck typo from an earlier AP story:
quote:"As of today, more than 4 million people have given me their vote for president, that's of course, less than Senator moccasin's 4.7 million, but quite a statement nonetheless. Eleven states have given me their nod, compared to his 13. Of course, because size does matter, he's doing quite a bit better with the number of delegates he's got," Romney said.
(But heck, maybe Romney does like referring to McCain as "Senator Moccasin.")
Posts: 2911 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I have heard speculation that this might mean a loosening of the iron grip on Mormons the Republicans have enjoyed.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: From the AP article:
quote:"If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror,"
:shakes fist:
This type of language is precisely why I will not support the GOP this election.
And precisely why I have never supported Romney and why I have a hard time seeing Romney supporters going to Paul.
I can't think of a single important issue where Romney and Paul are on the same side.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe Mormons will realize that while we've enthusiastically been a part of the party often dominated by evangelical conservatives, they've only tolerated us for our votes and do not return the favor of respect.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Did anyone else find it fishy that Bloomberg Inc. was sued by the EEOC this week, for alleged discrimination against pregnant women? It's almost as fishy as Rezko suddenly being indicted. I'm not saying these people are all innocent, but the timing intrigues me.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think my observation was more along the lines that if even 1/2 of Mormons voted for Romney (and I think this was in another thread) he'd plenty of votes. There were many ways the juxtaposition of those two numbers could be read.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think that Mormons will walk out of the Republican party in any great numbers. They will be more willing (like the ultra-conservative such as myself)to become more moderate in voting record if not in politics. It is possible Mormons will look more like Orson Scott Card and Ken Jennings.
Democrats have a chance to increase some of those Mormon votes if they have any political brains. Obama seems to be the only Democrat to get it, and you would be amazed how many Mormons have indicated a willingness to vote for him.
However, when it comes to Mormons both sides are idiots. I do not sense Democrats will be able to start building good will any more than Republicans have this election cycle.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obama's webpage indicates a 16 month time frame, continuous troop presence to protect our interest and bombing the hell out of any al Queda that try to take advantage of use not being their. Also, we would continue working with the UN to help Iraq and provide humanitarian aid, as well as negotiations with the rest of the region to protect Iraq. That is hardly cut and run.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aaaaaand Slate is nasty and personally insulting about Mitt Romney to the very end. They suck.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
mph, you know what I meant - conservative Democrats. Although, statistically Mormon are looking more like Jose crossing from Mexico. Don't know if that is true in activity rates.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: mph, you know what I meant - conservative Democrats. Although, statistically Mormon are looking more like Jose crossing from Mexico. Don't know if that is true in activity rates.
posted
Statistically, many denominations are growing faster outside of the USA than inside it. I don't know if that's true of the LDS, but that is how I interpreted the comment.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know it's ancent history. But, prior to the Nixon era, Republicans were not the majority in the Mormonverse. And even then, they were moderate Republicans for the most part. The "Bob Salter" capture of the Utah Republican party in the early 80's was the actual start of the conservative scourge.
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Uuhhhmmmm Blackblade, the Qing empire collapsed in 1911 with the founding of the Republic of China. Which never could control more then a quarter of the country so it makes a tad amount of sense why they could never offer serious resistence to Japan when the rest of the world could care less.
Are you insane? The Qing empire managed to eventually squash the Taiping Rebellion which was FAR larger in number than the Japanese forces of WWII. You of all people keep saying their influence over Tibet was absolute, and now you are saying they could only control North Eastern to central China?
Pu Yi was still given special accommodations his entire life, and had to be strictly watched as MANY Chinese considered him to be the son of heaven long after his abdication from the throne. Hence his natural appeal to the Japanese as a puppet figure head.
edit: I do think Mormons are slowly shifting from their absolute Republican loyalty, but it won't really be noticeable this election. Mormons definitely do not like how Romney was treated, but not enough that they will break ranks and vote for Obama or Clinton instead of McCain.
posted
"Aaaaaand Slate is nasty and personally insulting about Mitt Romney to the very end. They suck."
To be fair to Slate, i'm not sure Romney has a political track record that indicates he's anything other then a total dickhead... the man earned personal disrespect the way he managed his run for president, starting with how he treated the people who gave him any sort of foundation to run off of.
Good riddance to bad rubbish.
*MA resident, for those who don't know*
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
Gosh, I guess I just need a blog to post to when people keep questioning me about my support of McCain. Of course, I did choose a women's scripture study group over meeting McCain tonight.
I'm pro life and pro immigration. Well, at least I favor getting immigrats onto the tax rolls. I'm also confused about when conservatives got so passionate about free speech.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
BlackBlade: I think he's conflating several issues and oversimplifying, but he's not entirely off base.
First, the Qing victory over the Taiping Rebellion was a very close run thing which required several strokes of luck, intervention from foreign powers on the Qing side including a rather famous "Ever Victorious Army", and a fair amount of time (14 years). In fact, the Taiping Rebellion is often quoted as one of the factors that lead to the decline of Qing Dynasty China To say that the Qing Dynasty could have defeated the Japanese Army if it had not conceded territory to the Japanese is probably wrong. The full analysis would take much more time but the short and big clue is that the Qing did have the First Sino-Japanese War and Qing did get smoked.
Second, I actually believe Blayne Bradley's second sentence refers to the KMT under Chiang Kai-Shek during the late 1920s and early 1930s (rather than the Qing as I think you assumed). Even when the KMT did well in this era, they did in fact only have proper control over about a quarter of China http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Chinese_civil_war_map_02.jpg The rest was usually under the control of the warlords that survived the chaos of the Warlord era. This part is more debatable, but I believe that the Nationalists would not have won any wars with the Japanese either during the time when they conceded territory to the Japanese before the Second Sino-Japanese war.
As for Pu Yi, I think you're overestimating his appeal to the Chinese. After all, the Manchu Dynasty *was* briefly restored in Beijing in 1917 under Puyi and he was kicked out in less than a year with great gusto (and his regime probably made a very satisfying thump as it hit the floor;) ) Sure, he had to be watched carefully by the CCP, they always watch any potential threats to their power. However, in the end very few people would have listened to the puppet emperor. Not only was Pu Yi hated for being Manchu, but collaboration with the Japanese would have sealed the deal. After all, even Chiang Kai-Shek was often hated for conceding territory to the Japanese.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Correct Mucus, which bit him in the ass in the Xian Incident where his own Officer(s) arrested him and held him under house arrest until his relatives could negotiate a compromise between him and the Communists to fight the Japanese. The compromise was while the CPC was allowed to exist the Red Army had to fight nominally under KMT control, this didnt last too long and there were alot of bumps along the road but the CPC had a grueling several years before 1946 but they fought as a roughly unified front while the war lasted.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Correct Mucus, which bit him in the ass in the Xian Incident where his own Officer(s) arrested him and held him under house arrest until his relatives could negotiate a compromise between him and the Communists to fight the Japanese. The compromise was while the CPC was allowed to exist the Red Army had to fight nominally under KMT control, this didnt last too long and there were alot of bumps along the road but the CPC had a grueling several years before 1946 but they fought as a roughly unified front while the war lasted.
Read your history books again. The communists were not destroyed by KMD forces on several occasions because Chiang Kai Shek's son was a de facto hostage of Stalin. There are several well documented cases where Chiang Kai Shek assembled his forces and clearly demonstrated that he COULD completely destroy the communists. He falsely believed that Russia would give him his son back in exchange for him letting the communists leave but was always disappointed.
He was not arrested by his own men, his liason between him and Mao turned into a spy for Mao and purposely set up a situation where Chiang Kai Shek would attend a good faith meeting with Mao where neither side would bring forces with them. He walked into the trap and Mao used Chiang as a bargaining chip.
Mucus: You are right that it took a long time for the Qing to stop the rebellion, but then again a big part of it was that they failed to properly assess how strong the rebellion really was, and they constantly sent mediocre forces against the Tai Ping rebels. I think that coupled with the fiasco of the Boxer Rebellion is what did in the Qing. Well...those Opium wars did not help either.
Interestingly enough Pu Yi was actually very obnoxious for the Japanese to control, but he did enough for them to get severely reprimanded by the communists. I was not suggesting that he ever became anything close to emperor after the fall of the Qing dynasty, only that symbolically he was important to the Chinese people and his being setup as a Japanese puppet was clearly a message to the Chinese people that they should not resist the Japanese.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
lol. That's the most hilarious thing I've seen today.
Some quick comments:
I'm wondering how many Republicans cross over and vote for Clinton in an attempt to poison the well because they hope McCain can beat her? Probably not as many as vote for Obama because they actually like him.
Clinton has never said she wants everyone out in "90 days." She's pretty much agreed with Obama that she'd like them out in a year. Obama I think is better with this question because he honestly says that how the drawdown works will be dependent on the situation on the ground. They'll still come home, but he won't just pull them out willy nilly.
Polls have recently shown pretty much a statistical tie between Clint and McCain and Obama and McCain. Though after awhile you have to wonder if that margin of error really exists or not. The election is still 9 months away however.
Democrats are finally starting to make smarter arguments about the environment, tying it in directly as a defense issue, not a global warming issue. Getting us off foreign oil means billions of dollars out of the hands of people who hate us. It'll have a much longer lasting effect, and will free up our foreign policy options a lot more than being bogged down in a quagmire. I think we'll see a lot more of that, and a lot of finger pointing at Democrats as being the roadblock. Any Republican who voted against the renewable energy tax credit TWICE now in the Senate will get hammered for it, and I think McCain did twice. If Democrats spin it the way REPUBLICANs like to, they'll say McCain voted twice to raise taxes on renewable energy while voting to lower taxes on oil companies. Then they'll show a photoshopped picture of him hugging a Saudi Prince with an oil derrick in the background. But I don't think Democrats are as clever as Republicans at the dirty politics, so, we'll never see that ad.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:"In this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror."
Pardon?
--j_k
My parents believe that if a Democrat gets elected to office this country will become a safe haven for terrorists and we will all die at the hands of Islam.
My parents hold similar beliefs. Or at least my dad does. My mom doesn't voice her political views much, but Ericka and I somewhat seriously suspect that she might be a closet democrat.
But anyway, I just found out yesterday that my dad believes most/all democrats (but not me, interestingly) are strong socialists. Honestly, I can't decide if I should be amused or depressed by our vast political differences, but I couldn't help feeling some satisfaction when I informed him of Romney's dropout (he voted for him on Tuesday, much to my surprise. I'd pegged him as a Huckabee fan).
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BlackBlade: Where did you come across the bit about Chiang Kai-Shek's son being a major factor? I have not come across that before and online I can only find references that lead back to one controversial book by Jung Chang link
Edit to add example:
quote: RE: The Long March bridge crossing incident
The bridge was not defended at all by the KMT side, they say. "Chiang had left the passage open for the Reds," the authors state, in one of the most astonishing assertions of their book. ... The reason: Chiang was desperate for the return of his son Chiang Ching-kuo, kept since 1925 a virtual hostage in Moscow by Mao's main backer, Stalin.
The authors claim this is supported by archived KMT cables. And they claim to have met a local woman - "a sprightly 93-year-old" in 1997, running a bean curd shop near the Luding Bridge - who remembered the Reds firing a few sporadic shots across the river but no gunfire coming back, and who said very little of the planking had been removed.
...
Oxford University's Steve Tsang says the Chiang Kai-shek archives show the KMT chief did in fact order the senior warlord in the area to hold the crossing on pain of court martial, while his 100,000-strong Central Army tried to catch up with the Reds from the south.
Some of the Sichuan warlord's forces arrived before the Reds at Luding, but their commander panicked as the Reds' main force arrived. He fled, leaving behind only a few of his notoriously opium-dazed soldiers to defend the bridge. The attempt to burn the bridge could not have amounted to much, as the timbers were soaked by rain.
"The Maoist story of the battle was a lie, and a huge exaggeration but there was a battle," Tsang said. Above all, Tsang insists, Chiang Kai-shek did not on this occasion or, as far as the Chiang Kai-shek papers reveal, on any other occasion let the Red Army escape during the Long March.
Tsang said that in this case, as generally in the book, the authors had been "appallingly dishonest" in the use of sources they claimed to have accessed. "Mao was a monster," Tsang said. "(But) their distortion of history to make their case will in the end make it more difficult to reveal how horrible Mao and the Chinese Communist Party system were, and how much damage they really did to the Chinese people."
The list of historical errors and far-fetched theories builds up. Chiang Kai-shek's son had gone to Moscow in 1925 with his father's permission, to study, rather than being virtually kidnapped there as Chang and Halliday imply, pointed out Leeds University emeritus professor Delia Davin in the Times Literary Supplement. "Concern for his son's wellbeing did not stop Chiang from massacring communists in Shanghai in 1927," Davin said.
posted
Romney's as qualified and probably competent a potential president as there was in the field this year, comparable to McCain and Clinton on that score, I think.
That said, he ran an astonishingly poor campaign. He alienated, in order 1)moderate, competence-oriented independents, the folks he should have been running at from the beginning and started to in Michigan 2)the supporters of both his main rivals, by running negative ads against them (Jay Cost notes that folks who supported Giuliani had much more favorable opinions of Romney than supporters of the candidates Romney ran negative ads against), and 3)Those folks who only began to pay attention to politics in 2008, by ineptly and transparently politically manufacturing a public image for himself that reeks of expediency and dishonesty (not merely policy flip-flops, but going around the country mocking Massachusetts and France to the red-meat Republican base while 1)serving as governor of Massachusetts and 2)having served a mission in France).
If he had run as the Romney of the past two weeks or so from the beginning, he probably would have done much better.
posted
Mucus: Jung Chang's book was the first one to make the assertion that Chiang's son was being held hostage thus explaining why the Red's were not eradicated. I am well aware that some East Asian scholars have called the book's integrity into question but their criticisms have yet to convince me. It sounds like a whole lot of, "That's not the conventional wisdom on the subject, and I've never heard of these sources."
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BlackBlade: I've been reading up on the controversy. I think that it is more fair to say that it is "That's not the conventional wisdom on the subject, and I've never heard of these sources. Plus, we have plenty of *conflicting* sources"
I think we can both agree that this is far from a generally accepted reading of history and that there is plenty of room for disagreement.
Blayne's said a lot of questionable things, but I for one would be very wary of simply declaring by fiat that this is a fact. Or that one should simply "read your history books again" to be convinced of something like this.
It certainly was not in mine and mine are hardly glowing portrayals of the CCP.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: edit: I think it would help the Democrats if they could frequently discuss what they are going to do after they pull troops out.
I'm worried about what is going to happen to the already-shakey US economy if & when a flood of now-unemployed (?) troops come back into the mainland needing jobs that just aren't there.
Is the general assumption that the federal government will keep all of the troops -- officers to grunt level -- on military payroll at the same payrates as when deployed? Because it was hard enough for many military families to make ends meet on that salary as it was.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
