"The loud sucking noise you hear?  That's President Barack Obama
kissing up to the Chinese."

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/world/us/Obama-pilloried-over-ducking-Dalai-Lama-to-appease-China/articleshow/5092820.cms

"The loud sucking noise you hear? That's President Barack Obama
kissing up to the Chinese."

- - - -

In spite of his opposition to Communist China, the Dalai Lama of Tibet
is the darling of the American left. These would be the same leftists
who form Barack Obama's largest and most vocal base of political
support, so it is strange why Obama would risk offending them by
refusing to meet with the Dalai Lama during his trip to Washington
next week.

But maybe it's not so strange, since President Obama is scheduled to
make a trip to China next month to perform oral sex on Hu Jintao in an
attempt to convince him to loan the USA another trillion dollars.

And while Obama is smart enough to know he should avoid offending
Communist China, he also knows that it does not matter if he offends
the American left, since he and his Party are assured of their
continued support no matter what.

Leftists may whine and complain and stage a few half-hearted protests,
but 100% of them will vote for Obama again in 2012. Who else are they
going to vote for, Sarah Palin?



= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
"But the face of Obama seemed to persist for several seconds on the
screen, as though the impact that it had made on everyone's eyeballs
was too vivid to wear off immediately. The little sandy-haired woman
had flung herself forward over the back of the chair in front of her.
With a tremulous murmur that sounded like 'My Savior!' she extended
her arms towards the screen. Then she buried her face in her hands.
It was apparent that she was uttering a prayer."
-- 1984

It's called "realism".  The decison was made not to meet with the Lama
until *after* Obama visits the Chinese leadership in November because
of delicate negotiations concerning crucial foreign policy, economic
and environmental goals that the Lama has absolutely nothing to do
with.

Look around. Religion is dying.

On Oct 6, 9:54 pm, Mack A. Damia <mybaconbu... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
It's called "realism".  The decison was made not to meet with the Lama
until *after* Obama visits the Chinese leadership in November because
of delicate negotiations concerning crucial foreign policy, economic
and environmental goals that the Lama has absolutely nothing to do
with.

But Barack Obama was elected by U.S. leftists who support the Dalai
Lama, not the Chinese. Obama represents the American people, not the
Chinese leadership.

Look around. Religion is dying.

I always wondered why the left is so enamored of a religious leader
such as the Dalai Lama, the same left that would pelt the Pope with
rotten eggs if given a chance. But while I do not recognize the
authority of an unelected religious leader, the Dalai Lama still has
more authority than the unelected puppet government installed by
Communist China.

I participated in the Olympic Torch protest in San Francisco last
year, and everyone kept assuming that I was there to support the
Tibetan independence movement, but I was just there to protest
communist tyranny - particularly the Tiananmen Square massacre.

"San Francisco Welcomes Political Protesters. Beijing Kills Them."

"The loud sucking noise you hear?  That's President Barack Obama
kissing up to the Chinese."

Yup. I _knew_ this story would have the far-right defending the Dalai
Lama for the first time in their miserable self-hating lives!

On Oct 6, 9:54 pm, Mack A. Damia <mybaconbu... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

It's called "realism". The decison was made not to meet with the Lama
until *after* Obama visits the Chinese leadership in November because
of delicate negotiations concerning crucial foreign policy, economic
and environmental goals that the Lama has absolutely nothing to do
with.

But Barack Obama was elected by U.S. leftists who support the Dalai
Lama, not the Chinese. Obama represents the American people, not the
Chinese leadership.

Look around. Religion is dying.

I always wondered why the left is so enamored of a religious leader
such as the Dalai Lama, the same left that would pelt the Pope with
rotten eggs if given a chance. But while I do not recognize the
authority of an unelected religious leader, the Dalai Lama still has
more authority than the unelected puppet government installed by
Communist China.

I participated in the Olympic Torch protest in San Francisco last
year, and everyone kept assuming that I was there to support the
Tibetan independence movement, but I was just there to protest
communist tyranny - particularly the Tiananmen Square massacre.

"San Francisco Welcomes Political Protesters. Beijing Kills Them."

On 10ÔÂ8ÈÕ, ÉÏÎç1ʱ59·Ö, Dank 110100100 <dank... at (no spam) rocketmail.com> wrote:
"San Francisco Welcomes Political Protesters. Beijing Kills Them."

If you want to protest the T Square suppression, why don't you protest
against Kent State killing of students as well?

To support Tibet independence means more blood shed harvested by a few
international politicians.

On Oct 7, 10:37 pm, "fyfp... at (no spam) gmail.com" <fyfp... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On 10月8日, 上�1时59分, Dank 110100100 <dank... at (no spam) rocketmail.com> wrote:
"San Francisco Welcomes Political Protesters. Beijing Kills Them."

If you want to protest the T Square suppression, why don't you protest
against Kent State killing of students as well?

I suppose I could, but the difference between Kent State and Tiananmen
is that Americans who protest against Kent State are not imprisoned
for it. Kent State was an unfortunate accident , as opposed to
Tiananmen which was ordered by the highest-ranking Chinese leadership.

It was no accident. These are just the lies that the government put out

To support Tibet independence means more blood shed harvested by a few
international politicians.

Chinese are all about order.

Chinese society is as orderly as an
anthill or beehive, with every Han nothing but a drone whose only
purpose in life is to serve the collective. The greatest sin in Han
society is independence, whether it be independent thought or
political independence, and this is why the Dalai Lama is seen as such
a dangerous heretic.

On 10ÔÂ8ÈÕ, ÉÏÎç1ʱ59·Ö, Dank 110100100 <dank... at (no spam) rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 6, 9:54 pm, Mack A. Damia <mybaconbu... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

It's called "realism". The decison was made not to meet with the Lama
until *after* Obama visits the Chinese leadership in November because
of delicate negotiations concerning crucial foreign policy, economic
and environmental goals that the Lama has absolutely nothing to do
with.

But Barack Obama was elected by U.S. leftists who support the Dalai
Lama, not the Chinese. Obama represents the American people, not the
Chinese leadership.

Look around. Religion is dying.

I always wondered why the left is so enamored of a religious leader
such as the Dalai Lama, the same left that would pelt the Pope with
rotten eggs if given a chance. But while I do not recognize the
authority of an unelected religious leader, the Dalai Lama still has
more authority than the unelected puppet government installed by
Communist China.

I participated in the Olympic Torch protest in San Francisco last
year, and everyone kept assuming that I was there to support the
Tibetan independence movement, but I was just there to protest
communist tyranny - particularly the Tiananmen Square massacre.

"San Francisco Welcomes Political Protesters. Beijing Kills Them."

If you want to protest the T Square suppression, why don't you protest
against Kent State killing of students as well?

To support Tibet independence means more blood shed harvested by a few
international politicians.

On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 08:14:24 -0400, E. Barry Bruyea
termlimits at (no spam) democracy.com> wrote:

On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 21:37:44 -0700 (PDT), "fyfpoon at (no spam) gmail.com"
fyfpoon at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

On 10=D4=C28=C8=D5, =C9=CF=CE=E71=CA=B159=B7=D6, Dank 110100100 <dank.=
.. at (no spam) rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 6, 9:54 pm, Mack A. Damia <mybaconbu... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

It's called "realism". The decison was made not to meet with the =
Lama
until *after* Obama visits the Chinese leadership in November beca=
use
of delicate negotiations concerning crucial foreign policy, econom=
ic
and environmental goals that the Lama has absolutely nothing to do
with.

But Barack Obama was elected by U.S. leftists who support the Dalai
Lama, not the Chinese. Obama represents the American people, not th=
e
Chinese leadership.

Look around. Religion is dying.

I always wondered why the left is so enamored of a religious leader
such as the Dalai Lama, the same left that would pelt the Pope with
rotten eggs if given a chance. But while I do not recognize the
authority of an unelected religious leader, the Dalai Lama still has
more authority than the unelected puppet government installed by
Communist China.

I participated in the Olympic Torch protest in San Francisco last
year, and everyone kept assuming that I was there to support the
Tibetan independence movement, but I was just there to protest
communist tyranny - particularly the Tiananmen Square massacre.

"San Francisco Welcomes Political Protesters. Beijing Kills Them."

If you want to protest the T Square suppression, why don't you protest
against Kent State killing of students as well?

To support Tibet independence means more blood shed harvested by a few
international politicians.


Was the tragedy at Kent State ordered by the U.S. government?
Were the demonstrators imprisoned?
Did the U.S. attempt to cover up the killings?
Did the Chinese launch an investigation into the T Square reaction to
the demonstrators?

I think you better come up with a more germane comparison.

Not really.

Agents of the U.S. government shot and killed four students who were
protesting a war. That's all we need to know in the context of this
discussion, which centered on the United States' intolerance of
demonstrators at that time.

It reveals attitudes and itchy fingers.

On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 21:37:44 -0700 (PDT), "fyfpoon at (no spam) gmail.com"
fyfpoon at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

On 10ÔÂ8ÈÕ, ÉÏÎç1ʱ59·Ö, Dank 110100100 <dank... at (no spam) rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 6, 9:54 pm, Mack A. Damia <mybaconbu... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

It's called "realism". The decison was made not to meet with the Lama
until *after* Obama visits the Chinese leadership in November because
of delicate negotiations concerning crucial foreign policy, economic
and environmental goals that the Lama has absolutely nothing to do
with.

But Barack Obama was elected by U.S. leftists who support the Dalai
Lama, not the Chinese. Obama represents the American people, not the
Chinese leadership.

Look around. Religion is dying.

I always wondered why the left is so enamored of a religious leader
such as the Dalai Lama, the same left that would pelt the Pope with
rotten eggs if given a chance. But while I do not recognize the
authority of an unelected religious leader, the Dalai Lama still has
more authority than the unelected puppet government installed by
Communist China.

I participated in the Olympic Torch protest in San Francisco last
year, and everyone kept assuming that I was there to support the
Tibetan independence movement, but I was just there to protest
communist tyranny - particularly the Tiananmen Square massacre.

"San Francisco Welcomes Political Protesters. Beijing Kills Them."

If you want to protest the T Square suppression, why don't you protest
against Kent State killing of students as well?

To support Tibet independence means more blood shed harvested by a few
international politicians.


Was the tragedy at Kent State ordered by the U.S. government?
Were the demonstrators imprisoned?
Did the U.S. attempt to cover up the killings?
Did the Chinese launch an investigation into the T Square reaction to
the demonstrators?

I think you better come up with a more germane comparison.

        Stereo-typical anti-Maoist propaganda.  You can't add up all the deaths
that occurred in that area of the world and lay them at the feet of Mao.  
There was a revolution and people were going to die.  Many said that they
would rather die than go on living as slaves.  Look at how far he brought
China in such a short time.  The previous powers would not yield their
control lightly.  Some of those deaths would be at their feet too, if not
all.

--
Regards,
Fred
(remove FFFf from my email address to reply by email)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Nomen Nescio wrote:
On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 20:03:19 -0700, Mack A. Damia <mybaconbu... at (no spam) hotmail..c> > om
wrote:

On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 08:14:24 -0400, E. Barry Bruyea
termlim... at (no spam) democracy.com> wrote:

On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 21:37:44 -0700 (PDT), "fyfp... at (no spam) gmail.com"
fyfp... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

On 10=D4=C28=C8=D5, =C9=CF=CE=E71=CA=B159=B7=D6, Dank 110100100 <dank.> > .... at (no spam) rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 6, 9:54 pm, Mack A. Damia <mybaconbu... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

It's called "realism".  The decison was made not to meet with the > > Lama
until *after* Obama visits the Chinese leadership in November beca> > use
of delicate negotiations concerning crucial foreign policy, econom> > ic
and environmental goals that the Lama has absolutely nothing to do
with.

But Barack Obama was elected by U.S. leftists who support the Dalai
Lama, not the Chinese.  Obama represents the American people, not th> > e
Chinese leadership.

Look around.  Religion is dying.

I always wondered why the left is so enamored of a religious leader
such as the Dalai Lama, the same left that would pelt the Pope with
rotten eggs if given a chance.  But while I do not recognize the
authority of an unelected religious leader, the Dalai Lama still has
more authority than the unelected puppet government installed by
Communist China.

I participated in the Olympic Torch protest in San Francisco last
year, and everyone kept assuming that I was there to support the
Tibetan independence movement, but I was just there to protest
communist tyranny - particularly the Tiananmen Square massacre.

"San Francisco Welcomes Political Protesters.  Beijing Kills Them.."

If you want to protest the T Square suppression, why don't you protest
against Kent State killing of students as well?

To support Tibet independence means more blood shed harvested by a few
international politicians.

Was the tragedy at Kent State ordered by the U.S. government?
Were the demonstrators imprisoned?
Did the U.S. attempt to cover up the killings?
Did the Chinese launch an investigation into the T Square reaction to
the demonstrators?

I think you better come up with a more germane comparison.

Not really.

Agents of the U.S. government shot and killed four students who were
protesting a war.  That's all we need to know in the context of this
discussion, which centered on the United States' intolerance of
demonstrators at that time.

It reveals attitudes and itchy fingers.

OK! Let's go through the tens of millions that Mao killed.

        Stereo-typical anti-Maoist propaganda.  You can't add up all the deaths
that occurred in that area of the world and lay them at the feet of Mao.  
There was a revolution and people were going to die.  Many said that they
would rather die than go on living as slaves.  Look at how far he brought
China in such a short time.  The previous powers would not yield their
control lightly.  Some of those deaths would be at their feet too, if not
all.

--
Regards,
Fred
(remove FFFf from my email address to reply by email)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Nomen Nescio wrote:

On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 20:03:19 -0700, Mack A. Damia <mybaconbutty at (no spam) hotmail.c=
om
wrote:

On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 08:14:24 -0400, E. Barry Bruyea
termlimits at (no spam) democracy.com> wrote:

On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 21:37:44 -0700 (PDT), "fyfpoon at (no spam) gmail.com"
fyfpoon at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

On 10=D4=C28=C8=D5, =C9=CF=CE=E71=CA=B159=B7=D6, Dank 110100100 <dank.=
. at (no spam) rocketmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 6, 9:54 pm, Mack A. Damia <mybaconbu... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

It's called "realism". The decison was made not to meet with the =
Lama
until *after* Obama visits the Chinese leadership in November beca=
use
of delicate negotiations concerning crucial foreign policy, econom=
ic
and environmental goals that the Lama has absolutely nothing to do
with.

But Barack Obama was elected by U.S. leftists who support the Dalai
Lama, not the Chinese. Obama represents the American people, not th=
e
Chinese leadership.

Look around. Religion is dying.

I always wondered why the left is so enamored of a religious leader
such as the Dalai Lama, the same left that would pelt the Pope with
rotten eggs if given a chance. But while I do not recognize the
authority of an unelected religious leader, the Dalai Lama still has
more authority than the unelected puppet government installed by
Communist China.

I participated in the Olympic Torch protest in San Francisco last
year, and everyone kept assuming that I was there to support the
Tibetan independence movement, but I was just there to protest
communist tyranny - particularly the Tiananmen Square massacre.

"San Francisco Welcomes Political Protesters. Beijing Kills Them."

If you want to protest the T Square suppression, why don't you protest
against Kent State killing of students as well?

To support Tibet independence means more blood shed harvested by a few
international politicians.


Was the tragedy at Kent State ordered by the U.S. government?
Were the demonstrators imprisoned?
Did the U.S. attempt to cover up the killings?
Did the Chinese launch an investigation into the T Square reaction to
the demonstrators?

I think you better come up with a more germane comparison.

Not really.

Agents of the U.S. government shot and killed four students who were
protesting a war. That's all we need to know in the context of this
discussion, which centered on the United States' intolerance of
demonstrators at that time.

It reveals attitudes and itchy fingers.

OK! Let's go through the tens of millions that Mao killed.

Stereo-typical anti-Maoist propaganda. You can't add up all the deaths
that occurred in that area of the world and lay them at the feet of Mao.
There was a revolution and people were going to die. Many said that they
would rather die than go on living as slaves. Look at how far he brought
China in such a short time. The previous powers would not yield their
control lightly. Some of those deaths would be at their feet too, if not
all.