Disqus - Latest Comments for abbarick

Re: Can America's 6th Generation Fighter Jets Rule the Skies?

abbarick — Mon, 17 Oct 2016 19:32:54 -0000

After repeated failures of the fifth generation, with many in the military still ranking some earlier generation better, they want to jump to sixth generation. It's like a fifth grader that cannot solve a fourth grader maths after many repeated attempts now choosing to move on to grade six maths after failing both grades four and five. Why not? Just like many will go and buy certificates to give themselves qualifications that they cannot obtain through passing exams without cheating.

Re: What Should U.S. Do About China-Russia Alliance?

abbarick — Fri, 21 Aug 2015 03:00:16 -0000

"Some experts, including a well-known expert on politics Joseph Nye, believe that the warming relations between Beijing and Moscow is “a marriage of convenience” based on mutual distrust, as cited by Pravda.ru."
Experts that see the warming of relations between Beijing and Moscow as "a marriage of convenience", but fail to see the same as more or less true of the relationship between the US and its allies are either really foolish or just playing the fool. Our divide and rule policy is working in Europe mainly because we have an ally, Britain, that wholly rely on it to retain its leadership role in world affairs. Otherwise, only a stupid "expert" will fail to see the mutual distrust between the US and the EU, or Europe as a whole. The same is true of our relationship with other allies in other regions as well. Simply put in the wise phrase "There are no permanent foe or friend in international relations, only permanent interests." Need to add that even interest is not really all that permanent at all. With that reality in mind it is fair to argue that the US position is more precarious than that of either Beijing or Moscow and the relationship between the two in the present atmosphere of international relations whereby the US is viewed with distrust everywhere. Only the military might is on our side. However that is the very factor that compels and will continue to compel the warm relations between Moscow and Beijing, as well as other nations that do not trust the US or agree with our foreign policy but prefer something quite different. It is either the US forgo the dream of world domination and of being the sole policeman and dictator of world affairs, or we, with that same policy, continue to create its doom by forcing other nations into alliance with Moscow as the only power that is presently able to match us militarily with nuclear weapons. That will be mutual assured destruction (MAD), though. It is still unclear nuclear war of any sort could be limited in scope and not result in MADness.

Re: U.S. Will Easily Defeat Russia under Vladimir Putin Because Of Smarter Leadership and iPads – Barack Obama

abbarick — Tue, 30 Dec 2014 21:11:02 -0000

"Today, I'd sense that - at least outside of Russia - maybe some people are thinking what Putin did wasn't so smart," the U.S. chief executive was quoted by Business Insider as saying.
With that reference to Russia's moves over Crimea our president is far off the mark. Maybe he's just trying to put up a bold face about how Putin frustrated our long term Western strategy over Ukraine, just snatching away the main prize that NATO was after in Ukraine, namely bringing Russia's Sevastopol naval base under NATO's de facto control/influence. That was Russia's most brilliant move. With that move Putin prevented a greater loss strategically, even with all the sanctions and its effects on Russia's economy. If NATO had gained Crimea with Ukraine our Western alliance would have gained a by far much more greater military advantage over Russia which we would surely not have failed to use to pressure Russia to submit and yield to our demands which are not likely to be in Russia's interests, and likely to weaken it further and further. Now Russia has no risk of losing its naval base, and does not have to negotiate with anyone on how to use it, and does not have to negotiate the price for the use. It can also freely determine what happens on the Crimea peninsular without challenge. That is a very smart move and a huge gain for Russia. As for the sanctions? Russia would have lost far much more in the future than any amount of the present sanctions could cost it now if it had allowed Crimea to come under NATO's control/influence. Ukraine is the big loser in all these. NATO/US failed badly. The EU maybe gained some in a sense but it is still too early to see/say.

Re: Ukraine Gold Heist: Central Bank Yield Bricks Painted in Gold, Launches Criminal Probe

abbarick — Tue, 30 Dec 2014 04:03:57 -0000

Smells like an insider job to me. Trying to point the finger at Crimea is just some kind of diversion if there is any credibility to the story. Now that Ukraine has used up all its gold reserve, it may be interested in driving the price/value of the yellow ingot down to deal further blow to Russia who is still counting on its large holding of the precious metal as a sort of last resort to fight the current financial crisis troubling the rubble. Some other powers, including our own US and the EU, may also want to see gold and other precious metal fall in demand in order to boost the artificial value of the dollar and the euro. It may also be yet another front open to fight the efforts of the BRICs nations to create alternative financial system to the present one dominated by our Western powers.

Re: Will Putin Pay $90 Billion for Crimea?

abbarick — Wed, 04 Jun 2014 21:54:52 -0000

How did Ukraine acquire Crimea in the first place? Maybe Russia as the
recognized custodian of what was left of the Soviet Union should then be
able to sue the EU and NATO for those ex-Soviet states that have joined
the EU and NATO. And if Ukraine joins the EU Russia should sue EU
trillions of dollars.

Re: Gas speculators, gas prices, and gas bags

abbarick — Wed, 27 Apr 2011 11:43:58 -0000

"It is called freedom. It existed long before leftist anti-capitalists, and will exist long after many more socialist models are discredited and reduced to the ash heap of history".

Many ignorant childish people think socialism or communism is dead. They are dead wrong. Look into the family, which is the nucleus of any society and the origin and the back-bone of all human societies, and you will see socialism and communism in full open display. Even in the family of the most ruthless and most inhuman conservative capitalist ideologue on earth socialism / communism still prevail and capitalism, as they practise it on world stage, is an aberration. It is the socialist/communist socio-economic system that the family was built upon from the beginning, and is still standing upon, and will continue to rest upon for ever. In the family, no one ever questions the entitlements of the dependants, or the principle of "from each according to his ability and to each according to his need", except where it is being abused.

It is the practise of socialism/communism socio-economic system that has helped the family to survive all the hazards of all other systems and all stages of human development. When the family abandons the socio-economic model of socialism/communism, that will naturally spell the end of human society and all forms of human government, the family government being the best form of human government ever known, and upon which every other human government had depended and must depend for survival. The family is the only mature form of human government, so maturity often prevails over childishness in the sicio-economic decision-making process in the family.

When the world becomes mature and educated enough and when the capitalists no longer have any excuse to cover up the fact that capitalism, like slavery and feudalism before it, can no longer be of any benefit to mankind. Then it too will be dumped into the ash heap of history. Then socialism/communism shall move the world forward. The conservative capitalists will truly continue to discredit 'many more socialist models' but they will be naive to think that they can fool the whole world all the time forever. Moreover, the socialist model that is entrenched and en shined in every family will always be there to betray the capitalist in their efforts to fool the world continually. Incidentally, it will be the very policies that the conservative capitalist ideologues advocate that will help a great deal to make people grow up to see clearly and understand that the system is evil and cannot benefit mankind anymore, and is long overdue to be discarded peacefully or by popular revolt.

Re: Gas speculators, gas prices, and gas bags

abbarick — Wed, 27 Apr 2011 03:33:21 -0000

A child will always reason like a child, the only hope is that he grows up quickly enough and the childish thinking will naturally disappear. The potentiality to think like an adult is always there in the child, only he is not mature enough to comprehend it. Age, education and experience will help bring it out and set him free from the childish and stupid thinking eventually. It is a pity for the world that the US as its current leader is still very much under the sway of childish thinkers like Eric Golub who believe the way forward is still the way of HOSTILE COMPETITION FOR DWINDLING SCARCE RESOURCES rather than COOPERATING TO FIND OUT HOW BEST TO UTILIZE THEM FOR THE GOOD OF ALL. The stages of human history up to and including CAPITALISM all represent the childhood stage of human/world development/history characterized by selfish ego, which wisdom and common sense clearly show will ONLY, and SURELY lead to FAILURE and RUIN.

Socialism represents the adolescent stage of development of humanity, and most of the advanced world have come to this realization and are ready to adjust accordingly, but the powerful childish US that is leading the world is still bugged down with the same savage mentality of colonization and conquest for progress, development and prosperity, even though it is clear now that there are no more so-called virgin lands (or Virginia's) left to be colonized and named New York, New England, New Whales, or New Cambridge, etc. The childish thinking of the powerful conservative elements in the US is now focused on abolishing all social programs, and increasing US military intervention around the world as the path to progress and balancing the US budget. What a childish thinking!

Communism is what Christians pray for knowingly or unknowingly when they say 'The Lord's Prayer' saying "...Thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven..." True Christians certainly don't think/believe the socio-economic system in Heaven is anything akin to capitalism. If anything at all, the socio-economic system of Heaven must be akin to COMMUNISM as exemplified by the model which the Holy Ghost led the Early Church to practise in the Acts of The Apostles, when they shared and had all things common in the love of Christ.

Re: John Stossel: Liberalism is no longer about freedom | Washington Examiner

abbarick — Fri, 09 Apr 2010 03:04:04 -0000

I know it is going to be very difficult for people like you funu50401, who through much pain, sacrifices and hard work have advanced yourselves from the lower class of the society to the upper class, to really appreciate how much respect and admiration people like me have for you. But the hard truth that we all must acknowledge is that it just not possible to claim that such achievements comes only through "hard work and frugality" alone as you seem to suggest. The truth is that as in any competition there are bound to be winners and losers, and winners are not always the best, and the losers are not necessarily inferior to the winners. So, let not the winners look down with disdain/contempt upon the losers. As it is written: "...For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?" (1Cor.4:6,7) Also: "I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all." (Eccl.9:11) Again: "Except the LORD build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the LORD keep the city, the watchman wakes but in vain." (Ps.127:1).

What we are saying therefore is that, after the few privileged places have been filled by the few ones with the blessing of God by His grace, they should learn to do generally to those who are deprived as they would wish for themselves if they were one of them. Perhaps millions of people today wish they could become the president of the United States of America and many have been working very hard for that privilege position that only only one American can occupy at any given time. It would be wrong to portray all those who as not the president as inferior simply because they did not win the contest to become the president. Those privilege position are few compare to the number of people vying for them, but the rights of the losers to life must not and cannot be neglected/ignored without serious adverse consequences. There is the need for great understanding and cooperation among all in the society instead of hostile competition, and the 'winner takes all', and the 'survival of the fittest' attitude as we have it now. The unfortunate ones who do not own the means of production and are willing to work must be allowed to work to earn their living, and not be pushed to evil by the greed of those who own the means of production with their down sizing and streamlining measures to maximize profit, otherwise they will be forced to fight for their lives in a bloody revolution because it is really a matter of life and death for many now.

Re: John Stossel: Liberalism is no longer about freedom | Washington Examiner

abbarick — Thu, 08 Apr 2010 18:57:27 -0000

For all of you against the government takeover you might as well see yourselves as Marxists. The philosophy of Karl Marx sees the state (that is the government) as an instrument of oppression which curtails freedoms as long as it exists. Karl Marx teaches that it must be done away with, and the one to achieve that ambitious goal is the working class and not the capitalist class as Americans are being misled to believe. Communism, (you should feel free to call it utopia in the present world because I see it as a possibility only in the New Heaven and in the New Earth where God's will is done) as a stage in the future of human history, will be without states and the power of oppression that states wield. Maybe many Americans would become Marxists if they are allowed to study the original works of Karl Marx, rather than the distorted versions that are produced by the Leninist and capitalists.

Re: John Stossel: Liberalism is no longer about freedom | Washington Examiner

abbarick — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 23:16:43 -0000

Wendy McElroy says "...Government should get out of the way. It should allow people to open cottage industries without making them jump through hoops and licenses and taxing them to death. It should open up public lands and do a 20th-century equivalent of 40 acres and a mule..."

I wonder when people like Wendy and her likes will wake up from their dream and start facing the realities of today as being far distinct from what used to be centuries ago. Long gone are those days when there existed the so-called virgin lands (Virginia, New Englands, New Wales, New Jersey,etc.) to which the weak from the powerful nations could flee to make a living by grabbing lands in poorer and weaker nations and claim it as theirs. We all know that to be real stealing and robbery, which the victims had no means of preventing. But those years and centuries are now gone for ever. So the so-called libertarians have better wake up to the realities of today. Cottage industries to serve whom, for which market, at what price? And who is to open the so-called cottage industries to compete against the rich and industrial giants? We don't have to go out of the way to pointing at isolated cases of people like founders of Microsoft or Google to justify the rejection of the cause of the unfortunate millions who are very zealous to work as hard as anyone else can do but are just unfortunate to be able to find a job. Automation has taken over human jobs. Population is rising and the so-called public land has shrunk to the least reasonable levels. What sense is there calling for more production in a situation where demand is going down because people have no money to make purchases because they have no income because they have no jobs because they were laid off because of fall in demand and so on in a vicious circle?

It is rather too sad to read all these comments that completely ignore the real bone of contention in this ideological debate of socialism versus capitalism. We just have to face it squarely, and stop hiding under such fictitious names like "left", "right", "conservative", "progressive", and so on. The real question that we all have to face and debate honestly without demonising one another is how to guarantee that basic rights that we all agree to be rights fundamental human rights, just like we see the anti-abortion activists fight for the 'right to life' for the unborn babies. We all know enjoying the fundamental right to life completely depends one having the means of livelihood, namely job or other sources of income as it is under socialism or capitalism. Under communism the individual needs are directly provided for by the community as the whole wealth in the community is jointly owned by all, as it is written: '...And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all' (Act. 4:32,33).

Under socialism means of production are primarily owned by the state and, hence, the government owes the people the responsibility to provide jobs for all to guarantee the basic right to life. Under capitalism individuals primarily own the means of production, and the people are expected to compete for the ownership of this limited means of production. The vast majority who happens not to be fortunate enough to own the means of production are left with the only option of having to serve others who own it in other to be able to secure their right to live, or right to life. There have been strong arguments for and against as to whether this is good or bad, right or wrong. Socialists see it as wrong basically because the right to life is not protected at all, especially in times like this when those who own the means of production are focusing on "down sizing", "streamlining", and other job cutting approaches to the economy and management. The problem with the US public is that the people expect the government to provide/create jobs for them to secure their rights to life but to hands off the means of production, and leave that in the hands of private individuals without regulation. I personally will suggest a familist approach to this problem because familism is universal without being controversial. Familism looks inward to see others for the right answers to social problems.

Re: David Limbaugh: Sick thinking from 'mainstream' leftists | Washington Examiner

abbarick — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 01:18:38 -0000

Pac in NC writes: "Rights are thinkg worth fighting for: life, freedom, liberty, free speech, etc"

Re: What thrills the Left will scare away the center | Washington Examiner

abbarick — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 15:31:45 -0000

notohcr writes:"That really doesn't make any sense - its only government spending that can cause deficits and government that borrows from china..."

Now I can see how huge a problem and damage ignorance is causing the American public. It is strange that some of those engaging in this kind of debate don't even know what is called deficit and how it is accumulated. It is very sad that people like notohcr cannot understand even the basic, very simple fact, that the trade deficit of the US that is owed to China is mainly (perhaps over 90%) private sector generated in the form of the consumer goods imported by the US private sector. What is the US government buying from China? Simply put, the only thing that the US government does under the US capitalist system is to print the dollars and let the private sector spend it, but the system does not allow the government to regulate how the private sector spend.

It is certain that proper understanding of the US capitalist system and how it works would change people like notohcr into yestohcr. I weep for the ignorance of so many innocent Americans that have been deceived into joining and fighting for a cause that is bitterly and completely against their short term and long term interest. I am sure that most of those are making loud noise against what they call 'big government' or 'government expansion' don't even have any good understanding of what they are talking about except what they have been told or taught by the extreme right propagandists, using the same Cold War rhetoric employed to fight the former USSR and communism.

Re: What thrills the Left will scare away the center | Washington Examiner

abbarick — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 16:46:31 -0000

The real problem is the high wage in the US which is making US-made goods less competitive in the global market. This is a self-imposed problem that is enhanced by the unique role of the US dollar as real international currency that only the US is privileged to produce. With such unique absolute monopoly on the production and export world's most demanded commodity, the US soon naturally came to rely mainly on the export of the dollar in which it enjoys absolute advantage in international trade, and thereby lost its competitiveness almost everywhere else. This bad situation as it is today was made possible by the unilateral rejection and the breach of the Gold Standard condition in the international agreement that made the US dollar the main international currency. The Cold War mentality that blinded US major allies to the unfairness of the US unilateral move also helped to sustain and seal the unfair deal with dire consequences on the entire global trading community.

The real problem is that the US abused the unique priviledge of the dollar being the main international currency used in conducting international trade. The US for decades used high wages to attract the best human resources to the US, pushing up US wages until it overpriced its products out of the international marketplace. With the US CEOs awarding for themselves huge bonussed even while their companies are reporting huge losses, it is not surprising that they lost the moral ground to persuade the unions to stop trying press for wages increases.

Re: What thrills the Left will scare away the center | Washington Examiner

abbarick — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 15:26:34 -0000

That is the point we are trying to make and let the American people see clearly that capitalism has failed. It has outlived its usefulness in promoting human progress. We are dependent on poor China for financing and we can't admit that our system is faulty and has failed us too badly. Why can't we admit the failure and change to that which has proved better. How can we continue to argue that that which has failed by itself is right, and that which has succeeded against far more powerful opposition is wrong?

Re: What thrills the Left will scare away the center | Washington Examiner

abbarick — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 14:44:24 -0000

neoconsaredead: You really understand them fully well. Capitalism is evil. That is why it is unthinkable that God will ever allow it in Heaven. And it will be really hard for the real capitalists, the greedy ones, to enter Heaven.

Re: What thrills the Left will scare away the center | Washington Examiner

abbarick — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 14:28:08 -0000

mike flynn: You may be right to judge it that way. You just have to admit that growth is the main key to solving all these other problems as we all know, incidentally. Caring for a population of 1.7 billions can't be an easy thing. I fully agree with you that wage diferential is the main problem. But the US is to blame for such excesses in its wages, and not the other poorer countries. Is it not outrageous to see the US CEOs awarding huge bonuses for themselves while running their companies at a huge loss?

Re: What thrills the Left will scare away the center | Washington Examiner

abbarick — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 13:56:14 -0000

josephwootten: No need to be impolite here! Just let us debate it. A great number of US capitalists are already there and a lot more are preparing to join them. Maybe you too rea now boycotting the US economy like them to join them in perpetrating the so-called "slave child labor". Why cant the US take the high moral ground and return/payback the trillion dollar credit it has received from China then, or should we be feeding ourselves on the proceeds from the so-called "slave child labor"? If so, is capitalism not evil? Surely, you will have to agree that those US capitalists that kill jobs in the US by boycotting the US economy to invest in what you call "slave child labor" since the Bush administration are evil. Sure enough those US investors considered it a wise decision to boycot the Bush economy that turned the hefty surplus of Clinton administration into huge deficit, and to invest instead in the better performance, better regulated, and big government economy of the Peoples Republic of China.

Re: What thrills the Left will scare away the center | Washington Examiner

abbarick — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 12:04:16 -0000

Capitalism is evil, Period! Socialism has forced it to put up some human face so far, but the world progress is now being held back, and will continue to be held back by it until it is completely abolished just like slavery and feudalism before it. Capitalism has outlived its usefulness to to the pregress of mankind. So much for the so-called deregulation and small government. How come China with big govrnment and much regulation is now the number one destination for foreign investment, including US foreign investment, with US companies living the US in search for better investment evironment in China?

Re: How Pushing for Repeal May Hurt Republicans -- Political Wire

abbarick — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 13:03:09 -0000

A great percentage of those polled as opposed to the HC reform bill were really for the bill but felt that it did not go far enough for them, but they would rather have it than have nothing as the alternative. There were another good percentage that were against the Democrats for failing to use their huge majority to bring about the change they were voted into office to bring about, and they saw their votes being wasted away while the minority GOP is being allowed to determine what policy could be adopted or not. Now that the democrats have indicated that they would not let the minority GOP stop them from adopting policies that take care of the interest of the majority of Americans that voted them into office those voters would be there to heed their call to help them get reelected and even to help increase their majority in the coming Fall elections. The Republicans are going to be really shocked by their losses in the coming mid-term elections. And their far right pundits that have been living in dream land should wake up now.

Re: Americans Now Favor Health Care Plan -- Political Wire

abbarick — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 12:33:22 -0000

Re: Kerry vs. Clinton

abbarick — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 01:33:32 -0000

It is nonsense to think in any way that Hillary is better fit than John Kerry in any sense for the post of Sec. of State, because we all know that John Kerry is a far suitable candidate for the post, and Obama himself knows this very well. In addition, John Kerry's views on foreign policy and most other issues are are much more in agreement with Obama's, which is very important for the president-elect to have a good chance of implementing his own programme successfully. Even Hillary's husband and ex-president, Bill Clinton is careful in endorsing his wife for the post by adding the CONDITION that "they do it together" then she will be an excellent Sec. of State. If Obama eventually picks Mrs. Clinton it would be because of his judgement in trying to win over foes, knowing his TRUE FRIENDS would be more understanding to accept the sacrifices they are required/expected to pay for helping him to succeed. Let no one forget that it was John Kerry that used his own candidacy in 2004 to help in no small measure to project Obama to national limelight at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. And Kerry endorsed Obama very early in the primary race when Mrs. Clinton was still considered the inevitable candidate for the Democratic Party. Obama's priority seems to be directed at HEALING THE DIVIDE that had for a long time constituted a COG IN THE WHEEL OF PROGRESS for the nation. John Kerry has the same mind, and thus is likely to go along with Obama to try to win over and make the Clintons as well as other influential opponents, like Lieberman, McCain, etc. to have the same mind for the good of the nation. So, it is advisable for shallow-minded and ignorant people like Gail Collins to please stop expressing their folly publicly in such a way that will creating new wounds as efforts are being made to heal the old ones. If indeed John Kerry is interested in the secretary post and it is being offered to Hillary Clinton, it must be a sacrifice on the part of Obama and Sen. John Kerry working as close pals to heal the divisions that had hindered the progress of the nation. John Kerry, or any other ally of Obama should be praised and not be ridiculed for being willing to make such sacrifices for the good of the nation!
I am Abbarick, and I approve this message!