moonbattery.gif


« Ice Fails to Melt, But Obama Still to Use Global Warming Hoax to Finish Off Economy | Main | The Entertainment Industry's Economic Policy, Journalism's Objective »


February 23, 2009

Shrillary Sells Out Tibet, Taiwan to Follow

Not all potential casualties of Chairman Zero's disastrous regime are Americans. Some live on the other side of the world:

Amnesty International and a pro-Tibet group voiced shock Friday after US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton vowed not to let human rights concerns hinder cooperation with China.
Paying her first visit to Asia as the top US diplomat, Clinton said the United States would continue to press China on long-standing US concerns over human rights such as its rule over Tibet.
"But our pressing on those issues can't interfere on the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis and the security crisis," Clinton told reporters in Seoul just before leaving for Beijing.
T. Kumar of Amnesty International USA said the global rights lobby was "shocked and extremely disappointed" by Clinton's remarks.
"The United States is one of the only countries that can meaningfully stand up to China on human rights issues," he said.

But human rights play second fiddle to the manufactured or entirely fictional crises the current regime has already proven so adept at exploiting. When the Chicoms are done mopping up in Tibet, they will be heading for Taiwan. Who's going to stop them, Obama? Before he's done reducing our economy to ruins, we'll be no match for the Chinese anyway.

On a tip from mega.

Posted by Van Helsing at February 23, 2009 9:22 AM

Comments

so the rest of the world doesn't like u.s. better now that pobama's in office?

Posted by: nancz at February 23, 2009 9:33 AM

keep an eye on the ticker today guys. 3rd straight day of losses... under 7k if this crap keeps up. 401k's are now 101'ks.

Posted by: Anonymous at February 23, 2009 9:51 AM

You must love this issue, you can attack from either side.

If the SoS vowed to keep tough on China over human rights abuses you'd no doubt be barking over how she was ruining the economy by bawwwing over a bunch of communists.

Sometimes adults have to make tough choices in life. Deal.

Posted by: Anonymous at February 23, 2009 10:34 AM

No, Anon, we wouldn't. We are opposed to Communism in China and elsewhere, and to its human rights abuses against Tibet.
It's one of the few issues that liberal and conservative citizens more or less agree on.

Posted by: Adam at February 23, 2009 11:41 AM

SQUAWK SQUAWK DAMN HER AND THOSE BLASTED FLYING MONKEYS IM GETTING TIRED OF THEM CROWDING UP THE SKY IM GOING TO START PECKING THIER EYES OUT IM ONE MAD SHOREBIRD SQUAWK SQUAWK SQUAWK

Posted by: SPURWING PLOVER at February 23, 2009 12:29 PM

The Amnesty International guy said:

"The United States is one of the only countries that can meaningfully stand up to China on human rights issues."

Sorry, dude -- make that:

"The United States was one of the only countries that could meaningfully stand up to China on human rights issues, but no longer. Not with the Hildabeast playing at Sec State and Obambi ruling the world (in his own mind, anyway)."

So long, Tibet; so long, Taiwan.


Posted by: jc14 at February 23, 2009 2:49 PM

>>...the global climate change crisis...>>

Liberals are willing to let people be killed and/or enslaved for their pet causes. I've said before that only THE CAUSE is important to Liberals, not the outcome.

Communisim! 'global warming'! Screw the United States! All hail THE CAUSE!!

I'm looking at you, ANONY. You say that adults have to make hard choices, yet your kind doesn't thnk about the CONSEQUINCES of those choices, which is what ADULTS have to do when making decisions.

Posted by: KHarn at February 23, 2009 3:48 PM

Well, frankly, I would love to be wrong about global warming. Unlike some of my pinhead brethren, I have no emotional stake in being right; I just want to be sure that I am right.

The problem with consequences is that there's always more then one to any choice. Unlike many conservatives, I believe there's still going to be an Earth with humans on it in five hundred years. I want there to be enough resources for their to be a basic standard of living for those people, so right now I support population control and and environmental maintenance. If that means that not everyone can have everything they can possibly want now, oh well. (No, not promoting the crazier aspects of that, so just stall the wild tangents here.)

Frankly, even if you could somehow organize a world-wide blockade of China, I don't think any kind of pressure could influence them on human rights. What will happen is what usually happens in China, idiots will gain power and the country will backslide again.

Posted by: Anonymous at February 23, 2009 6:54 PM

"I want there to be enough resources for their to be a basic standard of living for those people..."

Bull. You don't want anyone to use the resorces now, so why shuld we believe that you'll "let" us use them in... WHAT? Ten years? Twenty? A hundred?

Just how old are you? You are afraid of over-population, but I've heard way back in the sixties that the Earth will be over-crowded by 1990. That by 1995 there will not be enough food because the land will be paved over. That by 2000 we will be in an ice age. Guess what? IT DIDN'T HAPPEN!!

You Liberal FEAR-MONGERS are pathetic!

Posted by: KHarn at February 23, 2009 8:43 PM

I take it you're familiar with math at least somewhat.

The amount of land is fixed. The population is growing at a geometric rate. Just as with oil, we're going to eventually run out. I don't know when that "eventually" is going to happen, but it will happen. As with any problem, it's better to implement a solution sooner rather then later.

People keep saying an observable length of time, and it is a mistake. It is almost impossible to get anyone to care what is "eventually" going to happen; almost no-one is that selfless. The figure the best way to get people to care is to lie to them.

I would propose attempting to at least keep the population static or at a linear growth rate for now, and transition from sources of energy that will run out to those that won't. If people weren't careless little grubbers who would sacrifice the future for the present (hey, something we agree on!) then we would not need to have controls imposed.

Posted by: Anonymous at February 23, 2009 9:40 PM

"Anonymous at February 23, 2009 9:40 PM"

You're an idiot. You didn't read what I wrote and you if you did, you didn't think about anything but your Liberal/communist dreams of control and power.

Posted by: KHarn at February 24, 2009 4:36 AM

I did read what you wrote. You talk of attempts to scare you into compliance. I speak not of fear, but of inevitability. It's nothing you have to worry about; these things won't happen in your lifetime or the lifetime of your children. It's something that's going to happen eventually. You have to be able to see far enough beyond your own interests, which you are evidently not interested in doing. I have no method of compelling you to see as I do; I am merely disappointed in the limited ability of humans in general to realize long term consequences.

Posted by: Anonymous at February 24, 2009 8:05 AM

The amount of land is not fixed. Haven't the Dutch reclaimed thousands of acres from the North Sea? OOpppsss you forgot that one anon.

Posted by: Farmer Ted at February 25, 2009 6:38 AM