一个连自己的后代都毒害的国家，看来垬离灭亡越来越近了。。

[campfortune]

成都绝大多数人还是相信党。

海外反华分子估计又要气死了

你相信吗？

 

[茶马盐铁]

得嘞， 绕一圈儿， 还是回到 王林清模式。

 

[向问天]

你相信吗？

我相信事实真相。

 

[bianhetao]

中国的问题和特点是文化和历史问题特点。只有维持长期的持续的发展，才有那一点的可能从根本上解决。

政治如果能维持这种长期发展，就已经很好地完成了这个任务。

急急要求中国全面道德提升，


文化大革命2

文化大革命2来了的话，您要不要回国洗礼一下？

 

[9981]

历史上，陈升无光之后，是谁呢?

中国之文化历史负重，不是陈升无光可以卸去的。

到现在了，还盼着农民起义式的痛快，没有意义，痛快是痛快了。

个人认为发展而不争霸才是唯一促进中国文化，抛下历史负重的机会。可惜在这个竞争的世界，内部外部不一定会给中国足够的时间。

总要几代人吧。

持续长期发展是指持续长期的继续沾加拿大等西方老百姓的便宜么？

 

[zhangulei]

持续长期发展是指持续长期的继续沾加拿大等西方老百姓的便宜么？

你能做的其实是，让加拿大出一个自己的川普。
从根源上，让中国不能再占西方老百姓的便宜。

个人认为，国家之间，占便宜的国家政府是真正为人民的政府，真正有能力的政府。
那个被别国占便宜的，那个国家的政府，应该切腹自杀（比喻政党溃败，比如安省自由党的下场）。太对不起自己的老百姓了。

美国民主党主导的极端全球化，肥了大资本家，但却让中国“占便宜”。这猪头一样的事儿，怎么怪得找中国政府？

国家存在的意义，第一点就是人民利益。

 

[zhangulei]

文化大革命2来了的话，您要不要回国洗礼一下？

文化大革命2，正在进行中。我躲都躲不开。身在其中。还好，西方的特点使得西方出了川普。文革2也许就此完结了。希望如此吧。

 

[9981]

你能做的其实是，让加拿大出一个自己的川普。
从根源上，让中国不能再占西方老百姓的便宜。

个人认为，国家之间，占便宜的国家政府是真正为人民的政府，真正有能力的政府。
那个被别国占便宜的，那个国家的政府，应该切腹自杀（比喻政党溃败，比如安省自由党的下场）。太对不起自己的老百姓了。

美国民主党主导的极端全球化，肥了大资本家，但却让中国“占便宜”。这猪头一样的事儿，怎么怪得找中国政府？

国家存在的意义，第一点就是人民利益。

谢谢你能够客观地承认中国一直在沾便宜， 这都已经够了， 因为西方政府并不傻， 我们需要的是指出事情的真相。

我能做的是， 是阻止土共的宣传机器在加拿大为他歌功颂德，因为土共不配。

我能做的是， 是告诉几百万加拿大华人， 哪里才是你的家， 谁会跟你的孩子们合作共同进步， 谁会利用你们孩子们的善良而为自己谋利。应该相信谁的话。

 

[gocanoeing]

美国民主党主导的极端全球化，肥了大资本家，但却让中国“占便宜”。这猪头一样的事儿，怎么怪得找中国政府？

全球化不是美国民主党主导的，美国共和党更倾向于贸易自由化，民主党因为工会的原因对此其实不是很支持

 

[zhangulei]

谢谢你能够客观地承认中国一直在沾便宜， 这都已经够了， 因为西方政府并不傻， 我们需要的是指出事情的真相。

我能做的是， 是阻止土共的宣传机器在加拿大为他歌功颂德，因为土共不配。

我能做的是， 是告诉几百万加拿大华人， 哪里才是你的家， 谁会跟你的孩子们合作共同进步， 谁会利用你们孩子们的善良而为自己谋利。应该相信谁的话。

土共占便宜，是加拿大政府的羞耻。

为了你的家，你的孩子，你多多在加拿大政治上发言，参与讨论，对抗极左，甚至你可以亲自参与本地政治，这才是你应该做的。

 

[zhangulei]

全球化不是美国民主党主导的，美国共和党更倾向于贸易自由化，民主党因为工会的原因对此其实不是很支持

我说的是极端全球化. 你没看清楚把。

共和党80/90年代倡导全球化，出于道德和共同发展的需要。更是共和党对自由市场的一贯支持。之后克林顿将全球化推向过度，而布什因为911没有精力回调，到了奥巴马时代，全球化已经极端。所谓极端就是，美国已经失去主动权，失去控制。全球化负面作用恶化。直接导致了中国乘机崛起，美国多个工业体系空心化。百姓生活常年停滞不前。锈带。

任何东西倒了民主党手里，都会极端化，这是其党性决定的，进步，进步再进步，高达上无极限。哪怕是极端了，他也必须在那一端，才能捞到选票。否则，就民主党这能力，如何才能上台？

On the Subject of Globalization, Dems and GOP Exchange Hats

By Allan Golombek
December 04, 2018

President Trump may have planted a time bomb when he announced this weekend that he would soon withdraw the United States from NAFTA, a move apparently intended to pressure Democrats against opposing the successor agreement. He may carry out his threat, or he may not. Democrats may succumb to it or they may not. But one thing is clear: Democrats and Republicans are changing hats on globalization.

Democrats may be recalcitrant on NAFTA, but in general they are moving in the direction of globalization even as Republicans are passing them in the other direction.


While it is debatable whether Trump even has the authority to arbitrarily cancel NAFTA, what is not debatable is that when we listen to a Republican president rail against free trade, and congressional Republicans meekly go along with his concerns, and as nationalism gains support amongst Republicans voters, we see a dramatic contrast between the GOP of old and new. For decades, the GOP was the Globalization and Opportunity Party. When George W. Bush was president, for example, he could only count on the support of a dozen Democrats in the House of Representatives for any measure to open trade, which largely explains why so few trade agreements were completed during his term.

Going back even further, one sees that in the 1990s congressional support for free trade agreements came overwhelmingly from the Republican side of the aisle, even when the Democrats controlled the White House.
When President Clinton negotiated Permanent Normalized Trade Relations (PNTR) with China, for example, he did so on the understanding that then-Speaker Newt Gingrich would deliver the support of two-thirds of the House Republicans for the agreement. President Clinton himself could only count on delivering one-third of Democrats at best. As it turned out, Gingrich exceeded his side of the bargain - three-quarters of House Republicans voted for PNTR. President Clinton didn’t have to deliver a third of House Democrats; one-quarter turned out to be enough. Many Democrats were freed to vote their districts, or simply go along with union opposition to the pro-globalization measures.

Republican support for globalization in the 1990s was a continuation of a tradition that had been spawned in the 1980s, when Presidents Reagan and Bush achieved trade agreements with Mexico and Canada. Today, not only does a Republican president proclaim himself a nationalist, so do many Republicans in Congress and outside the Beltway.

To those who recognize the need for open trade and global cooperation, the Republicans have been moving along the opposite path. Meanwhile, support for globalization has been growing, slowly but steadily, among Democrats.

No doubt, this is a moving picture, one that is still developing. Many Democrats, particularly those who represent rust belt states and districts like Sen. Sherrod Brown (Ohio), want to see NAFTA scrapped as well as the replacement agreement. Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said the new agreement needs to be revised, to strengthen protections for workers and the environment, and to ensure these provisions are tightly enforced.

However, the general trend line is clear: Democrats are moving, haltingly and tepidly, away from protectionism, even as Republicans are moving towards it. In most recent polls, for example, Democrats have been strongly opposed to scrapping a trade deal with Mexico and Canada, in numbers greater than Republicans.

Why do the two parties seem to be switching roles? One of the principal reasons is the differing nature of the voters they attract. To put it bluntly, Democrats, with their support among the educated, urbanites and young people, represent globalization‘s winners; Republicans, with their support among the undereducated, rural voters, rust belt residents, and many threatened small business people, represent globalization’s alleged losers.

Just consider the difference in the two parties’ core bases of support. They’re pronounced. According to the Grinnell College National Poll, released this week, two-thirds of rural Americans approve of Trump’s performance as president, while two-thirds of urban Americans disapprove.

It is no wonder that the red and blue states seem to be part of different countries. In many ways, they are.

The fact is, globalization represents the path of economic growth and increased modernity. Republicans are shunning it and shunning their own legacy, even as Democrats are incrementally embracing it. Supporters of a more open economy are finding themselves with a different champion, as are supporters of a closed one.

 

[9981]

土共占便宜，是加拿大政府的羞耻。

为了你的家，你的孩子，你多多在加拿大政治上发言，参与讨论，对抗极左，甚至你可以亲自参与本地政治，这才是你应该做的。

很好， 这包括在CFC上发言

 

[咋整～]

得嘞， 绕一圈儿， 还是回到 王林清模式。

一出一出的《拍案惊奇 》！

 

[gocanoeing]

我说的是极端全球化. 你没看清楚把。

共和党80/90年代倡导全球化，出于道德和共同发展的需要。更是共和党对自由市场的一贯支持。之后克林顿将全球化推向过度，而布什因为911没有精力回调，到了奥巴马时代，全球化已经极端。所谓极端就是，美国已经失去主动权，失去控制。全球化负面作用恶化。直接导致了中国乘机崛起，美国多个工业体系空心化。百姓生活常年停滞不前。锈带。

任何东西倒了民主党手里，都会极端化，这是其党性决定的，进步，进步再进步，高达上无极限。哪怕是极端了，他也必须在那一端，才能捞到选票。否则，就民主党这能力，如何才能上台？

On the Subject of Globalization, Dems and GOP Exchange Hats

By Allan Golombek
December 04, 2018

President Trump may have planted a time bomb when he announced this weekend that he would soon withdraw the United States from NAFTA, a move apparently intended to pressure Democrats against opposing the successor agreement. He may carry out his threat, or he may not. Democrats may succumb to it or they may not. But one thing is clear: Democrats and Republicans are changing hats on globalization.

Democrats may be recalcitrant on NAFTA, but in general they are moving in the direction of globalization even as Republicans are passing them in the other direction.


While it is debatable whether Trump even has the authority to arbitrarily cancel NAFTA, what is not debatable is that when we listen to a Republican president rail against free trade, and congressional Republicans meekly go along with his concerns, and as nationalism gains support amongst Republicans voters, we see a dramatic contrast between the GOP of old and new. For decades, the GOP was the Globalization and Opportunity Party. When George W. Bush was president, for example, he could only count on the support of a dozen Democrats in the House of Representatives for any measure to open trade, which largely explains why so few trade agreements were completed during his term.

Going back even further, one sees that in the 1990s congressional support for free trade agreements came overwhelmingly from the Republican side of the aisle, even when the Democrats controlled the White House.
When President Clinton negotiated Permanent Normalized Trade Relations (PNTR) with China, for example, he did so on the understanding that then-Speaker Newt Gingrich would deliver the support of two-thirds of the House Republicans for the agreement. President Clinton himself could only count on delivering one-third of Democrats at best. As it turned out, Gingrich exceeded his side of the bargain - three-quarters of House Republicans voted for PNTR. President Clinton didn’t have to deliver a third of House Democrats; one-quarter turned out to be enough. Many Democrats were freed to vote their districts, or simply go along with union opposition to the pro-globalization measures.

Republican support for globalization in the 1990s was a continuation of a tradition that had been spawned in the 1980s, when Presidents Reagan and Bush achieved trade agreements with Mexico and Canada. Today, not only does a Republican president proclaim himself a nationalist, so do many Republicans in Congress and outside the Beltway.

To those who recognize the need for open trade and global cooperation, the Republicans have been moving along the opposite path. Meanwhile, support for globalization has been growing, slowly but steadily, among Democrats.

No doubt, this is a moving picture, one that is still developing. Many Democrats, particularly those who represent rust belt states and districts like Sen. Sherrod Brown (Ohio), want to see NAFTA scrapped as well as the replacement agreement. Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said the new agreement needs to be revised, to strengthen protections for workers and the environment, and to ensure these provisions are tightly enforced.

However, the general trend line is clear: Democrats are moving, haltingly and tepidly, away from protectionism, even as Republicans are moving towards it. In most recent polls, for example, Democrats have been strongly opposed to scrapping a trade deal with Mexico and Canada, in numbers greater than Republicans.

Why do the two parties seem to be switching roles? One of the principal reasons is the differing nature of the voters they attract. To put it bluntly, Democrats, with their support among the educated, urbanites and young people, represent globalization‘s winners; Republicans, with their support among the undereducated, rural voters, rust belt residents, and many threatened small business people, represent globalization’s alleged losers.

Just consider the difference in the two parties’ core bases of support. They’re pronounced. According to the Grinnell College National Poll, released this week, two-thirds of rural Americans approve of Trump’s performance as president, while two-thirds of urban Americans disapprove.

It is no wonder that the red and blue states seem to be part of different countries. In many ways, they are.

The fact is, globalization represents the path of economic growth and increased modernity. Republicans are shunning it and shunning their own legacy, even as Democrats are incrementally embracing it. Supporters of a more open economy are finding themselves with a different champion, as are supporters of a closed one.

这个你就得先证明克林顿推行的全球化和他前面的共和党总统们推行的全球化有什么不同，极端在哪里。。。

 

[zhangulei]

极端在哪里？哈哈，问问爱博士。你们俩是一对。说得到一起去。