Posted on 04/13/2006 10:23:12 PM PDT by Gengis Khan
They were the third-largest bloc in parliament! An exception? You've just admitted that you were lying when you said that the Congress Party is the "right wing." It isn't, it's centrist, and you knew it when you said it and you know it now. I'm not sure who you're trying to fool, but it sure isn't getting you (or Tailgunner Joe) very far.
Yeah kinda like the "centrists" in your own country who just gave away your homeland to Jihadist killers? Like those centrists?
Oh now you're just being ridiculous. The last US President to oppose normalized trade relations with Communist China was Lyndon Johnson.
Yes, the situation's entirely analogous. You sure got a good command of them metaphors, Joe. < /s >
You made the charge, you should substantiate your allegation that the President supports free trade with the Chicoms. Most conservatives do not and opposed permanent normal trade relations.
It sure does seem like you think Israel giving half their country to HAMAS terrorists was such a good idea that more "democratic" terrorists should take over their countries too.
Are you kidding me? You're certifiable.
...
President Grants Permanent Trade Status to China Statement by the Deputy Press Secretary President Bush Grants Permanent Normal Trade Relations Status to China
Today the President signed a proclamation granting permanent normal trading relations (PNTR) status to the People's Republic of China and terminating application of Jackson-Vanik provisions to China. Taking effect January 1, 2002, this is the final step in normalizing U.S.-China trade relations and welcoming China into a global, rules-based trading system. It marks the completion of more than a decade of bilateral and multilateral negotiations, and the beginning of a process of working constructively with China to help it fully implement its commitments on trade liberalization.
Congress authorized these actions subject to the President's certification that the final terms of entry for China into the WTO were at least equivalent to those agreed to bilaterally between the United States and China in 1999, and China's successful entry into the WTO. The President certified the equivalency of the final terms on November 9, 2001; China formally became a WTO member on December 11, 2001.
Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/12/20011227-2.html
You're frankly not worth my time. You're talking out of your ass, and I have business to attend to. Take care.
That means nothing since Bill Clinton already normalized trade relations in 2000.
They are "third largest" that control 2%. And when the king sacked the corrupt government, it is one of the RPP member who the king nominated to be the PM. So, yes, they are indeed exception. And you are the one who is lying.
"The Democrats are the most conservative major party in the United States*
*aside from the Republicans, who are the exception."
If they are part of the political crowd, then the king nominated one of its members the PM, after sacking the corrupt government. So, wouldn't that make the king pro-political party also?
the problem with Nepal is that it is a very very diverse country. The king is generally supposed to be a apolitical monarch like that in England. A sort of unifying figurehead. The people we made the constitution messed up and didnt do that. There needs to be a symbolic king though the alternative is ethnic strife.
The King was an apolitical monarch, and there was a constitutional monarchy, with a functioning democracy, but the king grew tired of that, so he threw the leaders of the government in jail, banned all political parties, free speech and freedom of the press, and installed himself as absolute dictator. Kind of makes George III look modest. And now the nimrods on this thread are calling the elected anti-Communist Prime Minister and his allies, "Communists," which is about as bizarre as anything can be.
Indeed. Without the "feudal king" as a unifying factor, Nepal is not even a country. Nepal was never a country before, just a hodge podge of ethnicities.
Only after Prithvi Narayan unified it, then it became a country. If the monarchy is overthrown, there will be bloodbath as people don't see themselves as countrymen, but as enemy nationalities.
"Nepal" will break into hundreds of smaller Racial-States. The Maoists are already doing it by creating "ethnic liberation zones" in western Nepal. The corrupt politicians are fanning it with their backward agenda. And India is financing them both.
What an insightful analysis. The king suspended the legislature just because he was "tired" of them. It had nothing to do with the civil war or the maoists at all. You make such perfect sense.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1488436.cms
http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=66081
reading the constitution you see it was not a constitutional monarchy like england. In england the king is appointed by the people and "governs" with their consent this is how the Republic of England went back to a monarchy. In Nepal the king had real power and according to the constitution, what he did was ok as long as it was for a few months. Basically the king can legally dispose of the government and rule directly but must explain why to parliament, that is where he messed up. If you ask me the constitution was messed up.
there was once a word for that, Balkanization.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.