The Shotgun Blog
« The Times Smears McCain, Silent on Obama Rumours | Main | The Post Tells the Real McCain Story »
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
A deafening silence
Perhaps you were wondering why Communist China hasn't decided to defuse the growing brouhaha over its alliance with the brutal Sudanese regime.
Well, if you were, I have an answer, and it's not encouraging.
Posted by D.J. McGuire on February 20, 2008 in International Politics | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e5505ce71e8833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference A deafening silence:
Comments
By 2012 There will be too many yuppies in China and Taiwan to make a case for.
The Chinese need to understand that by embracing the capitalist way of business they are soon going to have a country full of Capitalists and those folks are more interested in the bottom line and BMWs than about who is running the world.
Things they are a changin'
I should mention that I care nothing for anything in Africa. Africa is already down the vortex of futility and hopelessness. Maybe Obama should take his message of hope and change to that place where they really need it. America is doing fine as it is ... as usual. Plus he would fit right in there wouldn't he? It will take more than a good sense of rhythm and a few dance steps to preside over the USA.
Posted by: John West | 2008-02-20 8:30:44 PM
nothing like so good ol' fashion racism eh John.
Posted by: ccn | 2008-02-20 8:52:33 PM
Not giving a hoot about Africa has nothing to do with racism. I started school in 1961, and since 1962 I've been listening to one long high-pitched whine about how we need to help Africa. I don't even remember all the countries that have had major catastrophies.
In that time I can't remember one single positive event that the African people brought about on their own. The end of apartheid was a positive, but only occured through pressure from countries like Canada.
So many liberals go on and on about how the US doesn't care about Africa because it has no oil. That's bull. Sudan has plenty of oil. Everyone has just finally realized that Africa is completely hopeless.
Posted by: dp | 2008-02-20 9:54:03 PM
I think insinuating that a black person should go back to africa because "It will take more than a good sense of rhythm and a few dance steps to preside over the USA" would be considered racism by a lot of people.
Posted by: ccn | 2008-02-20 10:08:22 PM
ccn: Are you trolling for racists? Complimenting Obama on his rhythm hardly seems a harsh statement. Unless you don't think he's that good a dancer? By the way, Obama is half white too, I believe. Therefore the fact that he's got rhythm is actually quite an accomplishment, yet sadly not enough to qualify one for the White House.
Posted by: Markalta | 2008-02-20 11:00:07 PM
I didn't say he should go 'back', I said he should take his message there where it's needed.
One of the highlights of his campaign was dancing with Ellen Degenerate on her TV show. He is the only candidate I have ever seen do such a thing. Some might consider that inappropriate. At the lest is was a tad juvenile, but that's just my opinion. I doubt that Mitt or Rudy would have had the lobes to dance with Ellen on TV. They are stiff white men with no ass.
So far all Obama has offered up to Americans is hope and change and a few dance steps. I am commenting on him ... just like eveyone else. He did mention last night that he intends to turn the US into a socialist nanny state and that makes me not like him.
Finally, I live in a non politically correct world where it's pretty well known that on average, black people dance better than white people. It's okay to say it because it's true.
It could be a better sense of rhythm or even a slightly different set of motor skills and skeletal joint configuration. Is that good or bad? Depends on what you want to do with your body. Mainly. it's simply a bit different. Wish I could dance better.
Africa IS a basket case and there is no amount of money or compassion in this world that can save it. It can be compared to a flesh eating disease. It's devouring itself in stupidity, corruption and AIDs.
Obama would fit in there because he is black, has an African name and his father is from Kenya.
My calling things as they are makes some people uncomfortable and that is their problem.
Got that CCN? You are not used to straight talk in your world I would imagine or you wouldn't have attacked me. You find it normal to not state facts and truthful observations. That's not free speech that's folding under the intimidation of the collective. Enjoy! I'll take a pass. Sue me.
Posted by: John West | 2008-02-20 11:27:26 PM
ccn- This dance issue is a bit dated. Soul Train was a great show, but I've noticed a definite shift toward Latin dancing lately.
I think Mark is right, you are trolling for racists.
Posted by: dp | 2008-02-21 9:27:52 AM
Never mind ccn, I'm sure there's some racism in everyone. Go look in the mirror.
Posted by: dewp | 2008-02-21 10:33:12 AM
Africa is the way it is because of the power/hand out philosophy of the people and gov't. If you look at white-run Rhodesia, it was a thriving exporter nation. As Zimbabwe, its people are starving to death for socialism. Obama likes the idea of killing competent corporations but he doesn't understand, as socialists don't, the repurcussions.
Getting rid of South African apartheid has not been a good economic decision. It'll be Zimbabwe soon enough. It as nothing to do with landscape either. Israel took a piece of desert and turned it productive and green.
So, for a nation to thrive, the gov't has to leave people alone and dump the hand outs. We live in a nation that has rich and poor. Both are that way because of the choices they made. Killing the rich has never benefitted the poor.
Posted by: Veteran | 2008-02-21 12:07:05 PM
Right you are Veteran. Having lived in Africa I know how true this is, for most of the Africans were hard working but without any true freedom due to excessive government, government corruption, a huge bureaucracy also very corrupted and mainly thugs running the show. Foreign aid actually made things worse for the people but it greatly helped increase the foreign bank accounts of the thugs.
Posted by: Alain | 2008-02-21 12:26:29 PM
>"Killing the rich has never benefitted the poor.
Veteran | 21-Feb-08 12:07:05 PM
On the contrary, when the Black Death swept Europe killing rich and poor alike, greater percentages of the rich died than the poor and that was partly why the serfs were able to rise to the level of peasantry.
This also allowed more peasants to become merchants, there was a lot of stuff left behind by the dead, and between the merchants and the peasants who had trades, the middle class was born.
The problem with Africa, apart from the low mean IQ and lack of private land ownership, is that there really is no middle class.
Socialism, by the way, erodes the middle class whether it is large or small.
"The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation."
Vladimir Lenin
(in Marxism the middle class is referred to as "petite bourgeoisie")
"The goal of socialism is communism."
Vladimir Lenin
Aid to Africa will never change anything.
HIV is the new "Black Death".
Time will tell.
Posted by: Speller | 2008-02-21 12:38:51 PM
Want to see the future of the EU/US/Canada? Look at our mindset and ask yourself how similiar it is to Africa's. Do we believe that the productive are greedy? Do we believe gov't is the solution or the problem? Do we believe that welfare/warefare will make us happy and safe?
People on here have told me to "love it or leave it" after I fought for it. Einstein left Germany in 1933 because he saw what was coming and left it. He was smart. Anyone who loves freedom has been leaving Canada. This will accelerate as National Socialism really takes hold of our minds and our gov't. The timid and ignorant flag wavers will stay and bear the brunt, and rightly so.
Posted by: Veteran | 2008-02-21 12:43:45 PM
Veteran/Sucker,
So you've left Canada then?
By "we" do you include yourself?
Do you think most Shotgunners are part of the "we" that doesn't resist socialism?
Posted by: Speller | 2008-02-21 12:49:32 PM
Actually, socialism is the new black death. That garbage about the plague being and opportunity for the peasants was worth a laugh. A sound business mind will prosper and it doesn't need to take property from the dead.
Look what happened when Zimbabwe stole the property of the whites. Are they now prosperous? No, the dumbasses are starving. Put an idiot in charge and everyone suffers.
If those middle classes were able to run a business, why didn't they do it before the plague? Why (metaphor) didn't they turn a piece of desert into an oasis like Israel did?
A very flawed point.
Killing the rich has never benefitted the poor.
Posted by: Veteran | 2008-02-21 12:52:10 PM
Google "Black Death" and grow wise.
Posted by: Speller | 2008-02-21 12:56:11 PM
Speller: "We" refers to the general population. The man on the street. He believes in gov't control of our, health, education, safety etc. He believes the gov't will save him in a time of catastrophe. hohoho.
The question is: Do YOU, Speller, believe the above? Do you believe in the welfare/warefare that is being waged in your name? If you do, then you will get what you deserve. If you don't, you better have an exit strategy.
I don't know what shotgunners think. I don't view them as a social group. I view each shotgunner as an individual. It isn't healthy to think otherwise.
Posted by: Veteran | 2008-02-21 12:59:56 PM
Are you seriously getting a "google" education? How about reading scores of books about econimics/history and theory? You really know how to make people chuckle. I think you should proudly display your Masters of Google Certificate.
Posted by: Veteran | 2008-02-21 1:08:13 PM
I actually learned about the Black Death from books.
I thought it would be more convenient for you to suggest Google.
You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think.
Posted by: Speller | 2008-02-21 1:11:57 PM
I'm glad you recognize your problem. It all begins with the first step.
You read all those books and you still think that dead rich people will help the poor? I suggest you read something other than the communist manifesto.
Posted by: Veteran | 2008-02-21 1:23:07 PM
I didn't write that "dead rich people will help the poor".
I merely refuted your empirically absurd postulation that "Killing the rich has NEVER benefitted the poor."
Veteran | 21-Feb-08 12:07:05 PM
Do you really think that in the annuls of time some poor armed robber has NEVER benefited from killing and successfully making off with some rich man's purse?
I suppose you've never heard of Robin Hood?
Posted by: Speller | 2008-02-21 1:38:01 PM
Speller:
It is funny...after reading veterans 1st post above,I thought, wow, I actually agree with him about something. Then he continues on and distances himself from every other person that may agree with him. I don't always agree with you Speller, but I certainly agree more than disagree. With veteran, if you don't buy his whole pie, you're a communist.
Posted by: Markalta | 2008-02-21 1:42:12 PM
Uh no, Markalta, allow me to clarify: If you believe in collectivism for war or socialism you're a communist. If you believe in killing and stealing from the rich, you are a murderer, a thief AND a communist.
Speller: Your arguements are getting more absurd every post. We're talking about systems of gov't, not petty thievery. A SYSTEM of killing the rich does not benefit the poor in the long run. Didn't you google Zimbabwe or South Africa yet? You could lose your google certificate if you don't try harder.
Even criminal acts like Robin Hood (who should've been hanged if he was real) only benefit the criminal until the law catches up or he gets blasted while tring to steal.
If you read Freakanomics, it points out that crack dealers dwindle in numbers because of the low pay and high risk.
But if Robin Hood is your hero, you're a thieving communist:)
Posted by: Veteran | 2008-02-21 3:44:38 PM
>"Speller: Your arguements are getting more absurd every post. We're talking about systems of gov't, not petty thievery. A SYSTEM of killing the rich does not benefit the poor in the long run. Didn't you google Zimbabwe or South Africa yet?"
Veteran | 21-Feb-08 3:44:38 PM
Why would I Google Zimbabwe or South Africa when the thread topic is China and Sudan?
Who am I, the Amazing Kreskin?
If you can't be specific that you were ONLY talking about Zimbabwe and South Africa when you made the general statement that, "Killing the rich has NEVER benefitted the poor."
Of course Robin Hood had never been to Zimbabwe or South Africa.
Had I known you were limiting your statement to Zimbabwe or South Africa I never would have brought up Robin Hood.
I do agree that Robin Hood should have been hanged.
That's even what the Sheriff of Nottingham was trying to, but Robin always got the best of him.
I think that was because of Maid Marion.
You see, Sucker, it's always an inside job.
Posted by: Speller | 2008-02-21 3:57:46 PM
veteran: What does collectivism for war mean? Would that be a national military? If so, then I assume that you consider that to be "communistic" in nature. If that is your meaning, then I humbly withdraw any further comments in response to your "moronic" dribble. If I misunderstood you, then I aploogize for thinking so little of you.
Posted by: Markalta | 2008-02-21 4:08:05 PM
Markalta,
Can you imagine Lysander Spooner with a bunch of pure Libertarians, repelling an Information Age Mechanized Military with nothing but small arms?
Better dead than Red I guess.
;.P
Posted by: Speller | 2008-02-21 4:20:48 PM
Or, Markalta, alternatively you would have rich Libertarians with well equipted private armies.
Your nation would resemble Afghanistan, Warlords everywhere.
Who'd a thunk Sucker was drafted into the CF in the 1980s to fight as a peacekeeper in Bosnia?
That's harsh.
You'd think he would have noticed he was the only draftee or something.
8.(
Posted by: Speller | 2008-02-21 4:30:53 PM
Speller: Never mind. You don't see the connection. Stay stupid.
Markalta: Have you ever heard the phrase "War is a socialist enterprise"? So, yes war is aggressive socialism.
Don't apologize for thinking little of me. Your thoughts aren't anything I can't get from a gov't sound bite or in the Calgary Sun. They are of no value.
Posted by: Veteran | 2008-02-21 5:18:19 PM
"War is a socialist enterprise"?
And Jihad is an Islamic holy socialist enterprise.
I'm down with that.
So if you're the aggressor in war, it's socialism, and if you're the defender in war, it's socialism.
But if you are just a pacifist and let the aggressor roll over you it's a private enterprise.
It's really so simple!
Why didn't I see this before?
Posted by: Speller | 2008-02-21 5:26:20 PM
You still don't see it. Just stay stupid.
Posted by: Veteran | 2008-02-21 5:28:35 PM
Speller: LOL, it must be quite a complicated vision that we don't see, and veteran isn't able to explain.
Posted by: Markalta | 2008-02-21 5:52:04 PM
"Africa is the way it is because of the power/hand out philosophy of the people and gov't."
Not true. Sweden/Denmark are governed with a socialist philosophy. They do ok. Africa suffers from a paucity of IQ. The mean is ~70. Israel prospers, with a socialist gov't, because the founding Ashkenazi mean IQ is ~115.
Posted by: DJ | 2008-02-21 6:10:38 PM
DJ,
I already worked the IQ thing in at, 21-Feb-08 12:38:51 PM
Posted by: Speller | 2008-02-21 6:32:22 PM
Well done.
Posted by: DJ | 2008-02-21 8:04:18 PM
The IQ angle is interesting but not consistent or accurate in the big picture.
Sure, socialism works somewhat for the Swedes because they have oil and exports. Resources can dumb down a nation and kill their need to think. When the exports die, you have a lump of humanity without the ability to create wealth. Nothing kills a good mind like an assured pay cheque and no ability to become wealthy. Not to mention, it took 75 years for the Soviets to crash. The Swedes future is yet to be written.
There were plenty of high IQs in the Soviet Union, yet the philosophy of socialism killed them. Also, There are genuises in Africa. The mean IQ isn't that important. The world (nation)needs hammer swingers and ditch diggers. As long as the foreman has some wits and the manager has the ability to create and organize, things will work. If Africa really needed high IQs and great thinkers, it could import them like Canada used to. We count on a few great minds (microsoft etc) to keep the less able working. So, political philosophy is more important than IQ. Russia proved that.
Israel is not totally socialist. You still have the ability to become wealthy with hard work and smarts.
Enduring personal and political success counts on a sound philosophy, not IQ.
Posted by: Veteran | 2008-02-22 10:45:09 AM
Markalta: It's difficult to argue with googlers. They have no base of knowledge and from what I see, they don't make sound inferences from suggestions. The question to me is: How base do I need to make arguement so it is understood? You've proven that you need your hand held through these arguements and often you and your ilk still don't get it.
The silly suggestions you made about libertarians prove that this is probably the first time you've delved into such an issue. The founding fathers of the USA were libertarians/anarchists. Did they seem defenseless to you?
Read some Rothbard, Hoppe, Nozick, Ayn Rand and Hunter S. Thompson never hurts when it comes to lessons in living as a free man. That would give you a base of knowledge you need make a sound arguement, rather than just seeing a statement and running to google.
Posted by: Veteran | 2008-02-22 11:05:44 AM
>"The founding fathers of the USA were libertarians/anarchists. Did they seem defenseless to you?"
They very nearly lost the War for Independence.
American Revolutionary War
In 1775, Revolutionaries seized control of each of the thirteen colonial governments, set up the Second Continental Congress, and formed a Continental Army.
The following year, they formally declared their independence as a new nation, the United States of America.
Yes, Veteran, the first thing the libertarians/anarchists you idolize did was establish Government and the second thing they did, after gathering taxes so they could afford it, was to set up a standing Army and Navy for defence.
If you study the history you will see that the Americans won because Britain was not only fighting the American Continental Army, but the standing Armies and Navies of France, Spain, and the Netherlands all at the same time.
Posted by: Speller | 2008-02-22 12:29:43 PM
veteran: You must have me confused with someone else, because I don't believe that I mentioned Libertarians. As for the U.S. founding fathers being anarchists, that's is just wishful thinking on your part apparently. See Speller's comments for that refutation.
And before you belittle Speller's rep. with googlizing paint, you make it obvious that you are fairly new to this site, because Speller has been here for a long while, and he certainly has commented more intelligently than what I have seen from you thus far.
As for my reading, well, thanks for the list, but I have different preferences in authors. Ayn Rand and some drug addled Rolling Stone writer just don't do it for me, thanks.
Posted by: Markalta | 2008-02-22 12:49:57 PM
"Hunter S. Thompson never hurts when it comes to lessons in living as a free man."
Veteran | 22-Feb-08 11:05:44 AM
Hunter S. Thompson blew his own brains out and died alone and friendless.
You might want to ponder that before you use him as a role model.
Posted by: Speller | 2008-02-22 1:01:13 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.