I also came across your site from a blogroll, probably Michelle Malkin's. I do not agree with most of what you write and your liberal-like name calling is rather childish, but at least you make sense whereas ALL the liberal sites I occasionally visit are in lala land and live in an alternate universe. BTW, China does not allow one to live in such an alternate universe. Blogger has been blocked here for over six months and people are in jail for their political views.
This is not one of the few "liberal" sites that I follow. I read everything, anytime and anywhere. Do not break your arm trying to pat yourself on the back, just keep writing.Comment Posted By Cecil On 10.12.2009 @ 18:44
1) How many legs does cheese have?
2) Does your car like hot dogs?
3) Is Obama American?//
My cat's name is "cheese." Is it still a dumb question?
My dog's name is "car." Is it still a dumb question?
The issue is not "American." Is it still a dumb question?
No dumb questions, only dumb attempts at cuteness. Everything depends on the circumstances.
It is not ok to ask about Global Warming. It is not ok to question evolution as a scientific theory. It is not ok to ask about the lack of openness of the Obama Regime. Duhhhhh, and the list goes on.
Lucky you are not in charge of determining what questions can or cannot be asked.
Cute really isn't that cute BTW.Comment Posted By Cecil On 5.12.2009 @ 01:07
I wear an XXL so make one of those Cotton Candy Conservative T-shirts for me as well. Make it a crimson Chinese red one to match the redness of Ricky Baby's . . . from all the spankings he is getting.Comment Posted By Cecil On 4.12.2009 @ 20:56
Yeh, tell us Ricky Baby. Kind of like those of us who questioned Manmade Global Warming - only a very stupid or ignorant conservative would dare do such a thing about the law of "gravity.". Question and be kicked out of the society of those who are always right and thus cannot be questioned.
I was always taught that there are no dumb questions just unasked questions. I tell my students here in China this everyday. Am I mistaken?
Dare ask a question that goes against what Ricky Baby believes and prepared to be called "silly little liberal-like names" and ostracized from the big "conservative" tent that he and others preach about every day. Ask the question and forever be labeled - blah blah blah. No room for "Ricky-labeled" nut/cult cases. Only those approved need apply.
Instead of the constant petty name-calling and bitterness against those who dare ask, why not send them to plenty of websites that pretty much prove Obama was born in Hawaii. Let 'em ask the questions. Questions are good for the soul and the intellect if for no other reason than to have self-proclaimed brilliant people run around and call people names for asking.
Palin is stupid. Bush is stupid. Limbaugh is stupid. Coulter is stupid. Hannity is stupid. Mitt is stupid. The only ones who are not stupid are you and me and now that I have written this, you realize that only you are left or are you still claiming to be "right."Comment Posted By Cecil On 4.12.2009 @ 20:49
Funny how name calling rapidly rises to the top when pseudo-Constitution loving free speechers like yourself find themselves under "seemingly" attack.
I will repeat your question that you posed to me - where exactly did you find out that I somehow jumped to some conclusion about the Ft. Hood shooting? Did I comment on it here in your comments section? Seems to me that you have yourself "rushed to judgement" concerning what I may or may not have believed concerning the shooting without any factual data to back it up.
Notice the careful use of the words "seemingly crying about" in reference to your blog. Why bring it up and make it an issue with comments not exactly positive toward those who obviously disagree with your position? Why call me names when I was very careful not to directly point fingers by the use of the term "seemingly." I obvious had doubts about where you stood but by writing the article the way you did, it "appeared" that you had made a moral judgement. Maybe I am just "appear" to be an ass in you mind but really am not. Maybe you just seemed to be making a moral judgement but really did not.
But back to the issue of name calling - tell me the difference between a conservative calling someone with whom he or she disagrees a nasty little name and that of a liberal who does the same. And tell me how I made an "ass" of myself by reading an article with a title such as THE ABSOLUTE MORAL AUTHORITY TO ACT LIKE AN ASS which "seemingly" denigrates a military person who "appears" to be a moral authority on said abuse issue?
Did I read your article? Absolutely. Did you make an ass of yourself by calling me a name, pretending to know what I thought 24 hours after the said shooting and them claiming to know that I did not read your article. The answer is a resounding - ABSOLUTELY!Comment Posted By Cecil On 26.11.2009 @ 06:14
I certainly did not entertain the concept that "only veterans should have a say about strategic military decisions." Veterans, by and large, will no doubt make the better strategic military decisions. History has long established this little law of decision making where experience count more than smarts(Vietnam decision makers come to mind here).
My comments were directed at those who try to speak with authority on the morality or immorality of decisions made by those "in harms way." Here we see Rick and his apologists seemingly crying about the "rushing to judgement" of the terrorist shooting at Ft. Hood and then apparently turning around and "rushing to judgement" about the possible abuse of an Al Qaeda terrorist by his captures. Those who make life and death decisions make them alone and they alone face the ultimate consequences of these decisions. Saying anything else other than this fact means one is rationalizing.
We all have the right to express our opinions. But, IMHO, some opinions are actually facts in opinion clothing. It it up to the listener to determine what is opinion and what is fact. Moral authority does exist out there someplace, but where?
Here we see Rick and his apologists seemingly crying about the "rushing to judgement" of the terrorist shooting at Ft. Hood and then apparently turning around and "rushing to judgement" about the possible abuse of an Al Qaeda terrorist by his captures.
Perhaps you want to point out where I make any comment at all about the "abuse" of the prisoner? If you had bothered to read what I wrote before making an ass of yourself, you might note the only mention I made of the incident was in reference to Allah's post on the subject - I passed no judgment, moral or otherwise on what happened.
And yes, 24 hours after the attack at Fort Hood, nitwits like you WERE rushing to judgment with no facts, nothing except your bigotry and ignorance. I was right - as was any sane, rational person - to wait for the facts. You were wrong.
ed.Comment Posted By Cecil On 25.11.2009 @ 23:11
Not sure which way to go on this issue. Things will eventually work themselves out hopefully without the influence of our Commander-in-Chief.
I am concerned with the following:
"And behind them, a veritable army that keeps our military supplied with equipment and the tools necessary to do their job. Our hero warriors are not alone on a hill, standing a silent sentinel to protect us. He is not naked, armed with a spear to fight off the wolves and brigands who would attack us. In addition to possessing the courage and dedication to duty, he is the best armed, best equipped, most technologically advanced, most deadly tool of war civilization has ever seen. And he didn’t get that way all by himself."
This is rationalizing pure and simple. Rationalizing so that a none military, none "in harms way" type thinks he has equal rights to criticize or judge decisions made "in harms way."
So Rick believes that decisions on the spur of the moment under duress and "in harms way" are made with the help of those around the person making the decision. Not even close. Those in support of and next to will not have to pay the piper if a piper is to be paid. All these decisions are made by an individual, alone with no help from anyone else. The training is done hopefully so that the nanosecond decision will be the right one. The hell with politics and rationalizing whimps who think they have the "ability" to judge one who makes such a decision. Been there, done that. Walk a mile in my shoes before you express your Constitutional "right" to criticize me. You have the right but you have no moral authority to do it unless you have experienced the same situation. A right expressed is not always right.
You have your opinions and you have the "right" to express them but that does not mean they are right. Jimbo is more right than your right given to you by our Constitution. Criticize at your own discretion but do not be surprised when those of us who have served and had to make the difficult decisions dismiss you as rationalizing your inability to understand our positions. No Brag Just Fact.
You don't know what I "believe" about this incident because I have not commented on it - something you would discover if you bothered to read what I wrote. I neither praised nor criticized anyone involved in the incident. Might I suggest a remedial reading course? That may help with your reading comprehension.
It is a fantastical notion that an argument or criticism is granted additional weight or power based on anything other than the logic and reason of its tenets. These things stand alone and are not dependent on extraneous nonsense like whether one has served or not. To argue otherwise is to engage in sophistry.
ed.Comment Posted By Cecil On 25.11.2009 @ 20:36
"They have a different worldview than our" seems to me you, in fact, do understand why I keep saying how liberals think. I am just repeating their worldview which I find not to be based on reality. Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't you just admit that you also are telling me how liberals think?
Do you not know how liberals think? We both obviously have friends who are liberals. I could probably list some "ways liberals think" and you would find that I am right on in my assessments. I do not find most of them to be what you describe as "normal folk."
Difference of opinion, no doubt.Comment Posted By Cecil On 25.10.2009 @ 07:36
Twas but a friendly discussion and very reasoned IMHO. You made statements that, in themselves, showed a lack of knowledge about the reforms in China. The Tiananmen Incident was a result of ten years of reform and not the start of the current reform as you stated. I went back to make sure this is what you stated and it was:
"After the communists brutally put down the Tienanmen square protests they knew they had to give the educated middle class something to put their energy into; making money."
This simply did not happen as the reforms have continued on the path set out ten years earlier by Deng.
I can only "know" what you write. Did you not make the statement that the reform started after Tiananmen or am I mistaken?
I do not pretend to know what you think or not think. I am not a liberal so I do not even try to fathom the intentions of my fellow humans. I may sometimes speak in general terms when I make statements about liberal philosophy or at least those liberals with whom I have a close friendship but that is normal.
I will admit I am wrong with the correct evidence. I do not believe I am wrong about my perception of China and the Chinese. Thus, why should I not question people who think I somehow live in something other than reality. We who believe as I do are not stupid and certainly not uneducated. The Obama administration is governing outside the direction that is America. He is trying to put into place policies that will fail, have failed in the past and go against human nature. He is destroying the very core of what made us Americans - who we are and that means different than Europeans and other Western folks.
You have the right to think this is ok but because some of us say loudly that he will fail has nothing to do with whether we want him to fail or not.
Chickens simply cannot be bred to cows as I said earlier and that is the reality in which I live.
Been a trip, thanks.Comment Posted By Cecil On 22.10.2009 @ 02:47
This "big difference" appears to explain why you think I am a right-wing wacko or worse. Could it be that you may not be correct in what reality really is? You see a big difference in events in China and the US where I see no difference especially in the results? Maybe it is those of you who believe there is a big difference in governments even though they have the same results that are in different realities.
With Acorn and other criminal organizations active, corruption throughout the states, free flowing tax dollars to constituents and the WH Personally involved in trying to muzzle opposition, should I and others question your belief that there is still a big difference in governments? Both you and Rick contend that those of us who raise the issue of socialism in America are only doing so to spread fear. Maybe it is people like you who have their head in the sand and believe that no such thing could happen in the US even though the results we see are the same as we see in authoritarian governments.
As to your belief that reforms in China somehow started in 1989 with the Tiananmen protest as a means to quell possible unrest simply shows your lack of understanding of China. Tiananmen occurred ten years after Deng instituted the first reforms. The unrest we saw at Tiananmen were a direct result of ten years of economic reform (liberalization) without the expected political reforms. "Protestors at the 1989 Tiananmen Square Incident included workers who felt that reforms had gone too far and threatened their livelihoods (Wikipedia)."
Misconceptions about modern China abound in the US. Collective state verses a individual state, you say? I certainly do not see that in my college students and they certainly do express such a notion. Mao is not an exalted figure and most have parents who were brutalized by the Cultural Revolution. The students I have are the same as any student in the world, where college is an exercise in pursuing truth. The text books are nearly identical as those in the US and some are even better since they do not have the stupid political correctness crap so common in the US education system.
So to summarize my position or "different reality":
1. The Chinese government successfully controls the message coming from the mainstream media.
2. The US government is trying to control the message coming from the mainstream media.
3. The Chinese government keeps a watch on those whom they deem to be problems politically and will go to great measures to demonize and even jail them.
4. The Us government keeps a watch on those whom they deem to be political terrorists (conservative activists), demonizing them with lies and smears and no doubt, would love to throw most of us in jail.
5. The Chinese government has a huge problem with corruption inside its organizational structure.
6. The US government has a huge problem with corruption inside its organizational structure. Seems this has risen to new heights under Obama.
7. The Chinese government passes rules and laws without consultation or regard to its citizens' needs or even wants. These laws usually are passed to add more money to the corrupt coffers or insure power continues and are passed with the idea that the elites know best.
8. The US government appears to be trying to pass rules and laws without consultation with its citizens. Control of major industries (banking, housing and auto) has been established to insure the coffers of the ruling party continues to swell, payback for those who kiss the ring so the party remains in power. Of course, these ruling elites know what is best.
Do I need to continue with the list or do you have just a little bit of an idea why members of the "uneducated right-wing mob" may not really be living in a different reality as you so firmly believe. We just may not be the uneducated folks you believe us to be.Comment Posted By Cecil On 21.10.2009 @ 03:31