I think you've gone and drank too much kool-aid... if there are any government requested (or mandated) backdoors in windows, I'm willing to bet they predate the Bush administration.
BTW, the NSAKey thing first broke back in 1999 (NT4 SP5) when Bill Clinton was in office and John Ashcroft was just a senator from Missouri.
Years ago Microsoft has given the Chinese government access to the complete source code of Windows operating systems. And the Chinese are not the only government who has access to the Windows source code.
And you have the nerve to call the grandparent "clueless?"
Ignoring the whole NSAKey fracas from a few years back (that would be too easy) exactly why do you think Microsoft has given China--or anyone else, for the matter--the "complete" source code to Windows? My understanding is that no one outside of Microsoft has the capability to build the software (and even MS has a difficult time there) so how do you know the source anyone has been given matches the binaries? Inserting (and masking) any backdoors would be fairly trivial.
It's also absurd to think that an American company wouldn't take such an action if asked/ordered to by the government--ANY company in ANY country would do so if their respective governments came calling.
If history is any indicator, this will bomb. I have seen more than a few "sub-(one/two/three)-hundred-dollar" systems. They are eventually built, greeted with millions of yawns, and soon disappear. What makes this one any different?
From my perspective, if you toss in an 802.11b CF card this thing makes the perfect PC for a manufacturing environment--I'd love to give one of these to every one of my shop leads so they can move around and do their jobs instead of being tied to their desks.
Right now the solution to that is a $2000 tablet PC--a sub $200 computer that only weighs 1.1lb?? Who cares if there's no onboard storage? That's what NFS and SMB are for. Who cares if it doesnt run windows? For email, office apps, and our ERP system, a cut down linux system is more than enough.
Google has spent years maintaining the highest ethical standards...
Such as censoring their search results at the behest of the chinese government? Licking the boot of a dictatorship just to avoid getting kicked out of the market is not "maintaining the highest ethical standards."
As far, as I am aware, this is simply not the case, and the US military in Iraq admits this is not the case.
I've heard the opposite... so if you could provide a citation to the above, I would appreciate it. However, I would note that googling "foreign insurgents" iraq returns 12,000 hits, the first page of which largely seem to support my claim over yours.
Seriously, do you know anything about these "foreign fighters"? What is the name of their leader, for example?
My understanding is that there are many disparate groups (some of whom are actually fighting each other) and there is no "leader." However, one of the largest factions, billing itself as "al-Qaeda in Iraq" is led by Abu Zarqawi. Zarqawi is most certainly NOT an Iraqi, but rather a Jordanian (or Palestinian.)
I already said, I don't like those "defenders" (or their methods), but you can't deny it's their land (even though you do) and they have the right to fight the invaders (the US Army).
This might surprise you, but as far as that goes I agree with you. It most certainly is their land, and it most certainly is their right (personally, I would argue it is their duty) to fight for it. However, in my view they are most definitely NOT fighting for any sort of Iraqi freedom, but rather to enslave its people (probably under some theocratic state.) Target selection--the fact that they're blowing up carbombs in areas populated by the people they're obstensibly fighting for, instead of US troops--makes that point quite well, I think.
Exactly what does a home grown group of "freedom fighters" get out of blowing up their own people? The ONLY goal is to make Iraq seem to be (and in actuality be) a no-man's land where neither the US nor the supposed new Iraqi government is in control. Again (this is of course opinion) it seems as if the goal here is more strategicly directed at US interests than toward any notion of Iraqi self-rule.
But by some weird logic, everyone who opposes the invaders is labeled a "terrorist"
As noted elsewhere, I agree with you that this label is foolish and ignores the reality of the situation in favor of a political buzzword.
They are also not really Islamists (deep in their hearts), although many use the ideology to gain popularity.
I agree that they're not really islamists--they certainly don't seem to be subscribing to any of the tenets of Islam I'm familiar with. Indeed, it's not about popularity but rather about power. Why fight your own war when you can convince someone young and desperate that allah is going to lay 72 virgins at his feet if only he drives a carbomb in and blows up other islamic arabs.
However, saying "they're not really islamists" is like saying Pat Robertson and his ilk aren't really christians. This might in fact be the case, but just like the hacker/cracker controversy, everyone ignores you in favor of the common usage.
Yes, he was a dictator, but at least the country lived in peace.
This is a usage of the word "peace" of which I was not previously aware. Maybe you missed the Iran-Iraq war, the invasion of Kuwait, Desert Storm, 10 years of the "no fly zone" with the resultant low-level constant warfare, and the recent unpleasantness?
What sort of ties are there?
I probably didn't make that as clear as I should have. My suggestion that it was "a laughable notion" was because the relationship between Hussein and al-Qaeda was decidedly negative. Radical islamists don't seem to like secularists very much.:)
Open your eyes, Zak! Get your own brain, don't just retransmit everything that Bush's cronies tell you.
I would suggest you open your own eyes. Looking a few posts up thread will reveal that I am certainly no fan of the Bush administration.
They are the aggressors, they deserve everything bad that happens to them. The fight in Iraq is not carried out by terrorists, but by insurgents, guerilla warriors, defenders of the homeland, if you wish.
Which of course explains why the vast majority of those "Defenders of the homeland" are from other countries.
These "Defenders of the homeland" you speak of also seem to have an almost fetish about cutting people's heads off--and the people they've been decapitating with knives (smile, you're on candid camera!) aren't agressors--in fact, they are almost exclusively people who are there trying to help the Iraqis rebuild. How about the woman who had been working to improve conditions in Iraq for 20 years who was abducted and executed by the "defenders of the homeland" last year--was she an agressor?
This isn't the Le Resistance we're talking about here. Most of the insurgents (I agree with you on that, btw--terrorist is quite the wrong word to use) are there to turn Iraq into a theocratic state ala Iran, and not out of some loyalty to a nation, or to Saddam Hussein (a laughable notion, given his relations with al-Qaeda.)
If I had to choose between having Bushie in the White House and Saddam Hussein in the White House, I'd pick Saddam without even thinking twice.
The words "fucking moron" come immediately to mind--and I'm not talking about Bush. When you can point at the mass graves in Alabama and thousands of dead Canadians killed by Sarin and other chemical nasties then maybe, just maybe, you can do an apples to apples comparison there.
And I say this as someone who thinks Bush has been an unmitigated disaster for our nation, opposed going into Iraq, thinks the legislators who voted for PATRIOT should be hanged as traitors, and who voted against Bush last November.
If India does the engineering and China does the building, then what the hell do WE americans do?
Neither India nor China are going to outsource "Management" to the US. We can't even be BUYers (customers) of this great new technology if we don't have money coming from somewhere in the first place.
This was exactly my question.
US tax payers have a duty to fund research in the US.
Here's my issue: American tax dollars go to support research in $DISCIPLINE, which eventually leads to $APPLICATION. The results of this research trickle down into the private sector, which results in $MULTINATIONAL turning it into $PRODUCT.
However, if $MULTINATIONAL does its own engineering in India, and builds $PRODUCT in China, exactly where is the benefit to the US taxpayer, who paid the biggest part of the bill and sees none of the return?
In order for a super-power nation to sustain its technological supremacy in this world, its government must invest its money for the advancement of engineering and science
This is probably going to come across as a troll or flambait, but it's really an honest question... even if the idea that shapes it is somewhat pessimistic:
In the earlier part of this century, what you suggest made perfect sense--the US government did lots of research, and US companies did lots of engineering and manufacturing based on the results. These days, however, things are different--what reason do US taxpayers have to fund raw science and engineering that will eventually trickle down to the private sector, when the private sector will do its own engineering in India, and build the final product in China?
Understand, I support NASA, DARPA, the national laboratories, etc, because I believe it's money well spent... but it's still a valid question.
It also sounds like card is giving into hollywood, changing the story from that a world that chooses to fatally damage a child in an effort to save itself, to that of a child that is fatally damaged, and then spends the rest of his life trying to make up for what he did.
You need to reread Ender's Game--specifically the introduction. Card says that the only reason he wrote Ender's Game--the novel, that is, as opposed to the short story--was as a setup to Speaker for the Dead.
That assumes your position is 'right'. If I consider mine 'right', there's no reason why I should change to get your vote. You should change and then I would get your vote.
If you consider your position morally superior to mine, than by no means should you change simply to garner my vote. However, you should not sit there and wonder why you keep losing elections if a majority of voters disagree with you!
Your suggestion that the voter needs to come to the candidate, btw, is absurd. If you can convince me of the truth of your arguments, hey that's great for both of us. OTOH, simply saying that your position is right and mine is wrong is no way for you to succeed.
They should modify or hide their beliefs to get more votes?
Yes to the former, no to the latter. If you want my vote, you're going to have to share--or at least support--a significant percentage of my political beliefs. Is that really so hard a concept to grasp?
Your point about gun control not stopping criminals getting guns would be completely correct if all gun crime were premeditated.
It's not.
You're wrong.
Exactly how does your statement invalidate his position?
Criminals will obtain weapons despite what laws may say to the contrary--the idea that the law abiding who already possess firearms legally may become criminals in the future does not make the initial statement false!
I've wondered why the Cylons have so few human forms. It seems reasonable that if they can create human forms from scratch they would make hundreds or thousands of them, and then change models over time so that the humans would never be able to identify all of the "human" Cylons.
I'm guessing it's a plot point: 12 Colonies, 12 Cylon models... maybe the individual models are akin to the Colonial tribes.
Re:Red index fingers: the hip new way to protest B
on
Hondas in Space
·
· Score: 1
Interesting how the people who are loudest about defending our liberty are also the loudest to condemn those who use freedom of speech to express their opinions.
As one who served in the military myself (long ago) I encourage expression of all opinions. Please don't stifle the very freedoms we have defended.
I find it interesting that you are doing the very thing you are posting against--it's wrong for the parent to tell the grandparent he's FOS because that would be "stifling" his freedom of speech, but it's perfectly acceptable for you to condem that response. Freedom of speech is not freedom to be beyond rebuttal.
And I say this as someone who largely disagrees with the parent poster.
Re:Bush's Reality Distortion Field rivals Steve Jo
on
State of the Union
·
· Score: 1
(2): Artificially create an image of strength in the American economy by increasing stock values.
To hell with stock prices--if all that money is invested in the economy, then it isn't an artificial image... the economy really is stronger.
(3): Since dividends are no longer taxed, thanks to last term, further redistribute wealth from the average person to those who need it the least--his self-termed "base" (Socioeconomic elites who mainly make their money off of investment.).
You're missing something: If my money is going into those invesments, I am going to realize those dividends, too.
Mao DIED 30 years ago!!! Have you seen the difference between China in 1976 and 2005?
The Tiananmen Square massacre happened in 1989--that's a little more recent than Mao, wouldn't you say? Do you honestly believe that the Chinese government wouldn't do the same thing today?
Contact me privately via the website if you want more discussion about pipe supports and boring stuff like that.
Gotta admit, alot of it is pretty damn boring. OTOH, some of it is quite interesting--constant spring hangers are pretty neat.
On the current project we're PDS modelling supports in-house, but that's for a specialized industry and out-of-spec project due to scale (I.E., very large bore piping)
Our catalog goes up to 36", but we've done larger in the past... I'm guessing you mean significantly larger than that. What's your definition of "very large bore piping?"
I've finally got a computer at the office capable of reliable real-time model-checking (Design Review).
If you don't mind my asking, what are you using for design review? Navisworks, Smartplant Review, something else?
Saying that your statement was "a bit of hyperbole" is like calling the Grand Canyon a roadside ditch.
Like I said, though, I agree with your basic point.
We talk of freedom, but, count China, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Russia, etc. among our 'friends' how is that embracing freedom?
You're preaching to the choir. Apparently, our way of punishing dictatorships involves lucrative deals resulting in a trade imbalance of tens of billions of dollars. "Bad dictator! Now go think about what you've done--and while you're at it, please take our manufacturing capability with you."
The Cultural Revolution and Great Leap Forward were abominable, but China is not as bad as that now.
This image says everything I need to about China not being "as bad as that" these days.
As for what happened to the American Indians, I agree with you--it was a terrible thing, and our hands are most certainly not spotlessly clean. However, we are discussing the present state of affairs--the US is no longer hunting Indian tribes to extinction, and we as a nation would not tolerate our government engaging in a similar act today. Contrast this with China's current policies in Tibet.
Um, yeah maybe you forgot about a little place called Guantanamo Bay. If you think China is bad you obviously do not know about the following
I'm not going to stand up for what's happenning at Gitmo--I'm as opposed to it as you seem to be. However, I can't allow the suggestion that what is happening in Cuba somehow makes the US worse than China to go unchallenged.
Mao used to rape twelve year old girls. His "Cultural Revolution" and "Great Leap Forward" accounted for the deaths of millions of his own citizens. When the US starts the wholesale murder of its own citizens while Dubya is raping children in the oval office, then we'll talk about "if you think china is bad..."
Slashdot Mirror
I think you've gone and drank too much kool-aid... if there are any government requested (or mandated) backdoors in windows, I'm willing to bet they predate the Bush administration.
BTW, the NSAKey thing first broke back in 1999 (NT4 SP5) when Bill Clinton was in office and John Ashcroft was just a senator from Missouri.
when China's economy lights up the real power will start to change hands. Thank god.
Thank god, indeed.
The US has quite a few flaws, but think long and hard on the above before you break out the champagne to celebrate Chinese dominance.
And you're clueless.
Years ago Microsoft has given the Chinese government access to the complete source code of Windows operating systems.
And the Chinese are not the only government who has access to the Windows source code.
And you have the nerve to call the grandparent "clueless?"
Ignoring the whole NSAKey fracas from a few years back (that would be too easy) exactly why do you think Microsoft has given China--or anyone else, for the matter--the "complete" source code to Windows? My understanding is that no one outside of Microsoft has the capability to build the software (and even MS has a difficult time there) so how do you know the source anyone has been given matches the binaries? Inserting (and masking) any backdoors would be fairly trivial.
It's also absurd to think that an American company wouldn't take such an action if asked/ordered to by the government--ANY company in ANY country would do so if their respective governments came calling.
If history is any indicator, this will bomb. I have seen more than a few "sub-(one/two/three)-hundred-dollar" systems. They are eventually built, greeted with millions of yawns, and soon disappear. What makes this one any different?
From my perspective, if you toss in an 802.11b CF card this thing makes the perfect PC for a manufacturing environment--I'd love to give one of these to every one of my shop leads so they can move around and do their jobs instead of being tied to their desks.
Right now the solution to that is a $2000 tablet PC--a sub $200 computer that only weighs 1.1lb?? Who cares if there's no onboard storage? That's what NFS and SMB are for. Who cares if it doesnt run windows? For email, office apps, and our ERP system, a cut down linux system is more than enough.
Sign me up!
Google has spent years maintaining the highest ethical standards...
Such as censoring their search results at the behest of the chinese government? Licking the boot of a dictatorship just to avoid getting kicked out of the market is not "maintaining the highest ethical standards."
Actually, it said the two were a "crack tram" at first
This isn't an error. "Crack tram" refers to the vehicle they were riding in when they came up with this...
As far, as I am aware, this is simply not the case, and the US military in Iraq admits this is not the case.
:)
I've heard the opposite... so if you could provide a citation to the above, I would appreciate it. However, I would note that googling "foreign insurgents" iraq returns 12,000 hits, the first page of which largely seem to support my claim over yours.
Seriously, do you know anything about these "foreign fighters"? What is the name of their leader, for example?
My understanding is that there are many disparate groups (some of whom are actually fighting each other) and there is no "leader." However, one of the largest factions, billing itself as "al-Qaeda in Iraq" is led by Abu Zarqawi. Zarqawi is most certainly NOT an Iraqi, but rather a Jordanian (or Palestinian.)
I already said, I don't like those "defenders" (or their methods), but you can't deny it's their land (even though you do) and they have the right to fight the invaders (the US Army).
This might surprise you, but as far as that goes I agree with you. It most certainly is their land, and it most certainly is their right (personally, I would argue it is their duty) to fight for it. However, in my view they are most definitely NOT fighting for any sort of Iraqi freedom, but rather to enslave its people (probably under some theocratic state.) Target selection--the fact that they're blowing up carbombs in areas populated by the people they're obstensibly fighting for, instead of US troops--makes that point quite well, I think.
Exactly what does a home grown group of "freedom fighters" get out of blowing up their own people? The ONLY goal is to make Iraq seem to be (and in actuality be) a no-man's land where neither the US nor the supposed new Iraqi government is in control. Again (this is of course opinion) it seems as if the goal here is more strategicly directed at US interests than toward any notion of Iraqi self-rule.
But by some weird logic, everyone who opposes the invaders is labeled a "terrorist"
As noted elsewhere, I agree with you that this label is foolish and ignores the reality of the situation in favor of a political buzzword.
They are also not really Islamists (deep in their hearts), although many use the ideology to gain popularity.
I agree that they're not really islamists--they certainly don't seem to be subscribing to any of the tenets of Islam I'm familiar with. Indeed, it's not about popularity but rather about power. Why fight your own war when you can convince someone young and desperate that allah is going to lay 72 virgins at his feet if only he drives a carbomb in and blows up other islamic arabs.
However, saying "they're not really islamists" is like saying Pat Robertson and his ilk aren't really christians. This might in fact be the case, but just like the hacker/cracker controversy, everyone ignores you in favor of the common usage.
Yes, he was a dictator, but at least the country lived in peace.
This is a usage of the word "peace" of which I was not previously aware. Maybe you missed the Iran-Iraq war, the invasion of Kuwait, Desert Storm, 10 years of the "no fly zone" with the resultant low-level constant warfare, and the recent unpleasantness?
What sort of ties are there?
I probably didn't make that as clear as I should have. My suggestion that it was "a laughable notion" was because the relationship between Hussein and al-Qaeda was decidedly negative. Radical islamists don't seem to like secularists very much.
Open your eyes, Zak! Get your own brain, don't just retransmit everything that Bush's cronies tell you.
I would suggest you open your own eyes. Looking a few posts up thread will reveal that I am certainly no fan of the Bush administration.
They are the aggressors, they deserve everything bad that happens to them. The fight in Iraq is not carried out by terrorists, but by insurgents, guerilla warriors, defenders of the homeland, if you wish.
Which of course explains why the vast majority of those "Defenders of the homeland" are from other countries.
These "Defenders of the homeland" you speak of also seem to have an almost fetish about cutting people's heads off--and the people they've been decapitating with knives (smile, you're on candid camera!) aren't agressors--in fact, they are almost exclusively people who are there trying to help the Iraqis rebuild. How about the woman who had been working to improve conditions in Iraq for 20 years who was abducted and executed by the "defenders of the homeland" last year--was she an agressor?
This isn't the Le Resistance we're talking about here. Most of the insurgents (I agree with you on that, btw--terrorist is quite the wrong word to use) are there to turn Iraq into a theocratic state ala Iran, and not out of some loyalty to a nation, or to Saddam Hussein (a laughable notion, given his relations with al-Qaeda.)
If I had to choose between having Bushie in the White House and Saddam Hussein in the White House, I'd pick Saddam without even thinking twice.
The words "fucking moron" come immediately to mind--and I'm not talking about Bush. When you can point at the mass graves in Alabama and thousands of dead Canadians killed by Sarin and other chemical nasties then maybe, just maybe, you can do an apples to apples comparison there.
And I say this as someone who thinks Bush has been an unmitigated disaster for our nation, opposed going into Iraq, thinks the legislators who voted for PATRIOT should be hanged as traitors, and who voted against Bush last November.
If India does the engineering and China does the building, then what the hell do WE americans do?
Neither India nor China are going to outsource "Management" to the US. We can't even be BUYers (customers) of this great new technology if we don't have money coming from somewhere in the first place.
This was exactly my question.
US tax payers have a duty to fund research in the US.
Here's my issue: American tax dollars go to support research in $DISCIPLINE, which eventually leads to $APPLICATION. The results of this research trickle down into the private sector, which results in $MULTINATIONAL turning it into $PRODUCT.
However, if $MULTINATIONAL does its own engineering in India, and builds $PRODUCT in China, exactly where is the benefit to the US taxpayer, who paid the biggest part of the bill and sees none of the return?
In order for a super-power nation to sustain its technological supremacy in this world, its government must invest its money for the advancement of engineering and science
This is probably going to come across as a troll or flambait, but it's really an honest question... even if the idea that shapes it is somewhat pessimistic:
In the earlier part of this century, what you suggest made perfect sense--the US government did lots of research, and US companies did lots of engineering and manufacturing based on the results. These days, however, things are different--what reason do US taxpayers have to fund raw science and engineering that will eventually trickle down to the private sector, when the private sector will do its own engineering in India, and build the final product in China?
Understand, I support NASA, DARPA, the national laboratories, etc, because I believe it's money well spent... but it's still a valid question.
If the Bush Administration cancelled the space shuttle program, they'd do it by passing a "Space Access Freedom Act".
Except it woudln't be the Bush Administration passing the law, it would be congress.
Back to civics class with you!
It also sounds like card is giving into hollywood, changing the story from that a world that chooses to fatally damage a child in an effort to save itself, to that of a child that is fatally damaged, and then spends the rest of his life trying to make up for what he did.
You need to reread Ender's Game--specifically the introduction. Card says that the only reason he wrote Ender's Game--the novel, that is, as opposed to the short story--was as a setup to Speaker for the Dead.
That assumes your position is 'right'. If I consider mine 'right', there's no reason why I should change to get your vote. You should change and then I would get your vote.
If you consider your position morally superior to mine, than by no means should you change simply to garner my vote. However, you should not sit there and wonder why you keep losing elections if a majority of voters disagree with you!
Your suggestion that the voter needs to come to the candidate, btw, is absurd. If you can convince me of the truth of your arguments, hey that's great for both of us. OTOH, simply saying that your position is right and mine is wrong is no way for you to succeed.
They should modify or hide their beliefs to get more votes?
Yes to the former, no to the latter. If you want my vote, you're going to have to share--or at least support--a significant percentage of my political beliefs. Is that really so hard a concept to grasp?
Though honesty is important as well. Google's motto is do no wrong, and I for one am inclind to believe them.
Yes because, after all, there's nothing "wrong" with censoring the news of a country ruled by a brutal dictatorship, is there?
Or were you talking about some other Google?
Your point about gun control not stopping criminals getting guns would be completely correct if all gun crime were premeditated.
It's not.
You're wrong.
Exactly how does your statement invalidate his position?
Criminals will obtain weapons despite what laws may say to the contrary--the idea that the law abiding who already possess firearms legally may become criminals in the future does not make the initial statement false!
I've wondered why the Cylons have so few human forms. It seems reasonable that if they can create human forms from scratch they would make hundreds or thousands of them, and then change models over time so that the humans would never be able to identify all of the "human" Cylons.
I'm guessing it's a plot point: 12 Colonies, 12 Cylon models... maybe the individual models are akin to the Colonial tribes.
Interesting how the people who are loudest about defending our liberty are also the loudest to condemn those who use freedom of speech to express their opinions.
As one who served in the military myself (long ago) I encourage expression of all opinions. Please don't stifle the very freedoms we have defended.
I find it interesting that you are doing the very thing you are posting against--it's wrong for the parent to tell the grandparent he's FOS because that would be "stifling" his freedom of speech, but it's perfectly acceptable for you to condem that response. Freedom of speech is not freedom to be beyond rebuttal.
And I say this as someone who largely disagrees with the parent poster.
(2): Artificially create an image of strength in the American economy by increasing stock values.
To hell with stock prices--if all that money is invested in the economy, then it isn't an artificial image... the economy really is stronger.
(3): Since dividends are no longer taxed, thanks to last term, further redistribute wealth from the average person to those who need it the least--his self-termed "base" (Socioeconomic elites who mainly make their money off of investment.).
You're missing something: If my money is going into those invesments, I am going to realize those dividends, too.
Mao DIED 30 years ago!!! Have you seen the difference between China in 1976 and 2005?
The Tiananmen Square massacre happened in 1989--that's a little more recent than Mao, wouldn't you say? Do you honestly believe that the Chinese government wouldn't do the same thing today?
Contact me privately via the website if you want more discussion about pipe supports and boring stuff like that.
Gotta admit, alot of it is pretty damn boring. OTOH, some of it is quite interesting--constant spring hangers are pretty neat.
On the current project we're PDS modelling supports in-house, but that's for a specialized industry and out-of-spec project due to scale (I.E., very large bore piping)
Our catalog goes up to 36", but we've done larger in the past... I'm guessing you mean significantly larger than that. What's your definition of "very large bore piping?"
I've finally got a computer at the office capable of reliable real-time model-checking (Design Review).
If you don't mind my asking, what are you using for design review? Navisworks, Smartplant Review, something else?
Are you a CAD, engineering or IT guy?
IT guy.
Yes it's a bit of hyperbole
Saying that your statement was "a bit of hyperbole" is like calling the Grand Canyon a roadside ditch.
Like I said, though, I agree with your basic point.
We talk of freedom, but, count China, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Russia, etc. among our 'friends' how is that embracing freedom?
You're preaching to the choir. Apparently, our way of punishing dictatorships involves lucrative deals resulting in a trade imbalance of tens of billions of dollars. "Bad dictator! Now go think about what you've done--and while you're at it, please take our manufacturing capability with you."
The Cultural Revolution and Great Leap Forward were abominable, but China is not as bad as that now.
This image says everything I need to about China not being "as bad as that" these days.
As for what happened to the American Indians, I agree with you--it was a terrible thing, and our hands are most certainly not spotlessly clean. However, we are discussing the present state of affairs--the US is no longer hunting Indian tribes to extinction, and we as a nation would not tolerate our government engaging in a similar act today. Contrast this with China's current policies in Tibet.
Um, yeah maybe you forgot about a little place called Guantanamo Bay. If you think China is bad you obviously do not know about the following
I'm not going to stand up for what's happenning at Gitmo--I'm as opposed to it as you seem to be. However, I can't allow the suggestion that what is happening in Cuba somehow makes the US worse than China to go unchallenged.
Mao used to rape twelve year old girls. His "Cultural Revolution" and "Great Leap Forward" accounted for the deaths of millions of his own citizens. When the US starts the wholesale murder of its own citizens while Dubya is raping children in the oval office, then we'll talk about "if you think china is bad..."