When the British came over to China to colonise it with the pretense of initiating trade, China said, “Oh but we already have everything, what could we possibly take from you?”
China was right. It needed nothing.
By the time the brits came over to China, China had already invented paper, gun powder, and machines for farming.
The Chinese emperor, a monarch, was always said to be second only to the heavens, and so, he acted like it.
Because of this, emperors were always careful and honourable in their actions.
When an emperor was said to dishonour the larger interest of the people, he was taken down.
China is a Communist country. No. Just take a moment to really understand that. Communist means that it caters to its poor - and believes that everyone should be equal and have at least all their basic amenities.
In fact, China is only said to be Communist now, because Communism was invented recently, but China has always catered to its poor.
China’s poor have gone from 250 million in number to 80 million in just 20 years.
Even right now, Chinese progress, at the rate its going, is always off the charts when compared to any other country whatsoever.
It is the only country that has held on to its original languages as the primary mode of communication for 2,000 years.
In fact, it is the only organically grown civilisation we have left in the world. China, in its constant state of renewal and growth, has the more direct link with its own history than Europe, for all its museums, books, and scholarly people, ever will.
TO BE CONTINUED and properly referenced (because I am still, of course, an IB student)
(as I read this)
Can’t agree with much of this.
I am really pissed. Here are the problems with this:
1. Having another country hate you (no matter who that is) isn’t a reason to be proud. The US shouldn’t be proud that a bunch of places hate us, and China being hated by the US isn’t impressive.
8. China IS NOT Communist. It isn’t. AT ALL. It used to have a form of Communism, but now it is pretty much as capitalist as they come. Private enterprise is everywhere. There are high-ranking members of the CCP that are investment bankers. I mean, COME ON.
Also, communism doesn’t exactly cater to the poor. Sure, it is the most equal system in the most basic definition of the word. But it pretty much puts all of the money into a giant pool and then splits it up evenly. It is grossly unfair in the sense that people who do harder or more skillful work don’t get rewarded, and no one has any incentive to become better at their job. Wouldn’t you be upset if you were the world’s best surgeon and still got paid that same amount of a cashier at Walmart?
9. Actually, it isn’t said to be Communist simply because IT ISN’T COMMUNIST. It has private enterprise. Lots of it. State owned enterprises are decreasing rapidly, and in the modern world, you can’t call it a communist country. They only use the name of the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) because, in the words of Deng Xiaoping (the guy who headed the CCP after Mao died), “It does not matter if a cat is called black or white as long as it catches mice.” China also hasn’t always catered to the poor, seeing as how there are people in rural China dying of starvation and the average wage (with all the billionaires factored in) is around $4 an hour. I wouldn’t call it catering to the poor when your government says that any country can put factories there, regardless of wage or working conditions. On my last check, we didn’t usually consider sweatshops good.
11. Yes, China has had one of the fastest growing GDPs in the world, and it was growing way, way faster than the US, but that’s partly due to it’s sudden shift to having lots of countries moving their factories to China and so suddenly, lots of money was being made. Now that the initial rush is over, there’s absolutely nothing to suggest that China’s GDP will continue growth at the same rate. In addition, China artificially inflates its own currency meaning that they just print more and more money. So they may have lots, but its value is quite low.
12. I’d like you to define ‘organically grown’? Because China was not 100% free from outside influences, but neither was any other country.
Somewhere I read of the freedom of speech. Somewhere I read of the freedom of press. Somewhere I read that the greatness of America is the right to protest for rights.
Can we all agree that, no matter who wins tomorrow, we will be conciliatory to those whose candidate is defeated? It’s not a good feeling, I still remember it vividly from 2004, and if everyone is nice and doesn’t gloat, I think it would go a long way to stop the widening gap between the different sides of American politics.
we all love looking at hilarious pictures of paul ryan acting like a douche bag on this website, but if we don’t vote he’s gonna be VP and the joke’ll be on us.
more like vote for whoever you want to vote for. make an informed decision. but seriously, if you’re 18 or older and a us citizen, vote. if you don’t vote, you don’t get to complain. and i know how much y’all like to complain.
File under: questions we need to be asking ourselves
Rewriting the constitution.
I think that if we get out enough votes and get involved enough, we can elect enough third and fourth party candidates at the local level and build up from there. I can’t see it working any other way.
Burn the constitution form a vanguard, smash capitalism, partake in democratic centralism.
Actually it doesn’t have a whole lot to do with the US constitution at all. It simply has to do with the precedent of using Single Member District Plurality. The Constitution could remain pretty much unchanged if the states decided to award their electors proportionally, instead of using a plurality system.
Yes yes yes ^ No Constitution involved! No mention of a 2-party system in there at all.
Asked if he would use his second term as a platform to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act, the president demurred, saying he viewed it as an issue for the states to decide.
“For us to try to legislate federally into this area is probably the wrong way to go,” Obama told MTV presenter Sway Calloway, who asked questions submitted by youth voters.
As weird as this is, this is actually the most constitutional I have ever seen Obama act. Marriage is a state issue and should not be up to the federal government.
Think of it this way, if you give the federal government the ability to permit gay marriage, then you also give the federal government the ability to ban gay marriage.
Bottom line is that gay marriage is a state issue according to the tenth amendment of the Constitution and Obama is right to say that he shouldn’t dictate it.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Side note: my personal belief is that no form of government be it federal, state, or local should dictate marriage.
Actually, I would beg to differ on the concept that gay marriage is a state issue. Regardless of opinions on gay marriage, it has to be a federal issue because of previous laws enacted and the Constitution.
Article IV, Section I is what is commonly known as the Full Faith and Credit Clause. The Constitution states, “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State”. What this essentially means is that each state has to recognize public records and acts from other states.
I mean, think of how chaotic the USA would be if each state printed their own currency; if your driver’s license wasn’t valid in a neighboring state; if you had to file for divorce in all 50 states to make it proper; if you could be married in one state but not in another.
The Full Faith and Credit clause is meant to prevent these things from happening. The issue of gay marriage, or any marriage for that matter, cannot be a state issue because it would make marriage contracts valid in some states but not in others, which is the exact opposite of what the founders intended. Also, the Defense of Marriage Act is a federal law, and thus has made gay marriage into a federal issue. Also, there are over 1000 legal rights conferred upon the signing of a marriage contract. Federal, legal rights.
Gay marriage cannot be a state issue, constitutionally or legally. So while the 10th amendment keeps many powers out of the hands of the federal government, marriage is not one of them. President Obama is, in my opinion, passing the buck when he says this is a states issue. Sooner or later, some President is going to have to make a decision either for or against gay marriage.
god this book is called ORIGINS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS but it skims right over excessive bail and i see no mention of the 6th or 7th amendments THIS IS MAKING MY RESEARCH PAPER VERY DIFFICULT
