On Sep 9, 12:08*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 11:52:42 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports

wrote:
Read this - it will completely blow that argument out of the water.

"One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But when it is led
by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can
also have great advantages. That one party can just impose the
politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move
a society forward in the 21st century."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/09/op...dman.html?_r=3

"Reasonably enlightened" - China.

WTF?

This op-ed piece can't be serious about a reasonably enlightened
China:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rM0cFEXG_mA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1DNjJd2YfA

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
* * * * * * *-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

It is serious because this is the way liberals think. This is why
they embrace Chavez and Castro. In their frustration over their
inability to destroy the Republic in just 8 months, they have allowed
the mask to slip revealing what they really want. 2009 liberalism is
truly fascism. This is what we are fighting. They do not believe in
representative democracy but in an autocracy led by elites
(themselves). We should all print out the NYT editorial to remind
ourselves of the true nature of the fight.
So, yes, they want a China style system where protestors are rounded
up and shot so their organs can be harvested and sold. They want a
system where policies are handed down regardless of what the people
want. Democrats do not trust the masses and believe only themselves
have the answers.

Frogwatch wrote:

It is serious because this is the way liberals think. This is why
they embrace Chavez and Castro. In their frustration over their
inability to destroy the Republic in just 8 months, they have allowed
the mask to slip revealing what they really want. 2009 liberalism is
truly fascism. This is what we are fighting. They do not believe in
representative democracy but in an autocracy led by elites
(themselves). We should all print out the NYT editorial to remind
ourselves of the true nature of the fight.
So, yes, they want a China style system where protestors are rounded
up and shot so their organs can be harvested and sold. They want a
system where policies are handed down regardless of what the people
want. Democrats do not trust the masses and believe only themselves
have the answers.



The Baker Act van is coming for you.

--
Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger:
Idiots All

In article 5c05ead9-6528-437b-8434-
,
says...

On Sep 9, 12:08*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 11:52:42 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports

wrote:
Read this - it will completely blow that argument out of the water.

"One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But when it is led
by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can
also have great advantages. That one party can just impose the
politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move
a society forward in the 21st century."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/09/op...dman.html?_r=3

"Reasonably enlightened" - China.

WTF?

This op-ed piece can't be serious about a reasonably enlightened
China:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rM0cFEXG_mA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1DNjJd2YfA

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
* * * * * * *-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

It is serious because this is the way liberals think. This is why
they embrace Chavez and Castro. In their frustration over their
inability to destroy the Republic in just 8 months, they have allowed
the mask to slip revealing what they really want. 2009 liberalism is
truly fascism. This is what we are fighting. They do not believe in
representative democracy but in an autocracy led by elites
(themselves). We should all print out the NYT editorial to remind
ourselves of the true nature of the fight.
So, yes, they want a China style system where protestors are rounded
up and shot so their organs can be harvested and sold. They want a
system where policies are handed down regardless of what the people
want. Democrats do not trust the masses and believe only themselves
have the answers.

Hey, look on the bright side... You would probably be spared to invent
all kinds of new toys for the regime.. snerk

--
No more serious politics...

Wafa free since 2009

"Frogwatch" wrote in message
...
It is serious because this is the way liberals think. This is why
they embrace Chavez and Castro. In their frustration over their
inability to destroy the Republic in just 8 months, they have allowed

Yep. You're right. We tried, we failed. I guess we should get Cheney back in
charge. lol

Democrats do not trust the masses and believe only themselves
have the answers.

Right on. Obama won by a landslide. The Dems are in control of Congress (via
voting?). We really do not trust the masses.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Sep 9, 2:24*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Frogwatch" wrote in message

...

It is serious because this is the way liberals think. *This is why
they embrace Chavez and Castro. *In their frustration over their
inability to destroy the Republic in just 8 months, they have allowed

Yep. You're right. We tried, we failed. I guess we should get Cheney back in
charge. lol

Democrats do not trust the masses and believe only themselves
have the answers.

Right on. Obama won by a landslide. The Dems are in control of Congress (via
voting?). We really do not trust the masses.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Friedman is well known for his globalist views and I agree with him on
that topic. Friedman should be able to espouse any topic he likes. I
only point out that the liberals do not trust "the people" to decide
things. This is why Obama is appointing all these czars who are
unelected.

"Frogwatch" wrote in message
...
On Sep 9, 2:24 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Frogwatch" wrote in message

...

It is serious because this is the way liberals think. This is why
they embrace Chavez and Castro. In their frustration over their
inability to destroy the Republic in just 8 months, they have allowed

Yep. You're right. We tried, we failed. I guess we should get Cheney back
in
charge. lol

Democrats do not trust the masses and believe only themselves
have the answers.

Right on. Obama won by a landslide. The Dems are in control of Congress
(via
voting?). We really do not trust the masses.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Friedman is well known for his globalist views and I agree with him on
that topic. Friedman should be able to espouse any topic he likes. I
only point out that the liberals do not trust "the people" to decide
things. This is why Obama is appointing all these czars who are
unelected.

Firstly, he was elected by a majority of Americans in the last election.
That was the result of the vox populi. Even though Bush wasn't the first
time and possibly not even the second time, he was still our president.

Secondly, czars began with Nixon and were reinforced by Reagan. Obama is not
doing anything unusual in that regard.



--
Nom=de=Plume

nom=de=plume wrote:
"Frogwatch" wrote in message
...
On Sep 9, 2:24 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Frogwatch" wrote in message

...

It is serious because this is the way liberals think. This is why
they embrace Chavez and Castro. In their frustration over their
inability to destroy the Republic in just 8 months, they have allowed
Yep. You're right. We tried, we failed. I guess we should get Cheney back
in
charge. lol

Democrats do not trust the masses and believe only themselves
have the answers.
Right on. Obama won by a landslide. The Dems are in control of Congress
(via
voting?). We really do not trust the masses.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Friedman is well known for his globalist views and I agree with him on
that topic. Friedman should be able to espouse any topic he likes. I
only point out that the liberals do not trust "the people" to decide
things. This is why Obama is appointing all these czars who are
unelected.

Firstly, he was elected by a majority of Americans in the last election.
That was the result of the vox populi. Even though Bush wasn't the first
time and possibly not even the second time, he was still our president.

Secondly, czars began with Nixon and were reinforced by Reagan. Obama is not
doing anything unusual in that regard.




Ahh...but Obama is *black* Got it?



--
Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger:
Idiots All

"H the K" wrote in message
m...
Ahh...but Obama is *black* Got it?


Only half... lol

--
Nom=de=Plume

nom=de=plume wrote:
"H the K" wrote in message
m...
Ahh...but Obama is *black* Got it?


Only half... lol

If he were "all" black, the trash would hate him twice as much.

--
Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger:
Idiots All

Frogwatch wrote:
On Sep 9, 2:24 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Frogwatch" wrote in message

...

It is serious because this is the way liberals think. This is why
they embrace Chavez and Castro. In their frustration over their
inability to destroy the Republic in just 8 months, they have allowed
Yep. You're right. We tried, we failed. I guess we should get Cheney back in
charge. lol

Democrats do not trust the masses and believe only themselves
have the answers.
Right on. Obama won by a landslide. The Dems are in control of Congress (via
voting?). We really do not trust the masses.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Friedman is well known for his globalist views and I agree with him on
that topic. Friedman should be able to espouse any topic he likes. I
only point out that the liberals do not trust "the people" to decide
things. This is why Obama is appointing all these czars who are
unelected.

And we want to kill the elderly, remember?