Download Drama Korea The Real Deal Has Come ^HOT^

<div>Initially Kwak Si-yang was selected as main lead opposite Baek Jin-hee=
, but on December 21, 2022, it was reported that he dropped out due to sche=
duling problems.[29] Ahn Jae-hyun replaced Kwak Si-yang, who is making come=
 back after 3 years, since he last appeared in 2019 series Love with Flaws.=
[30] Baek Jin-hee, having last appeared in 2018 TV series Feel Good to Die,=
 making a come back after 4 years.[31] Kim Sa-kwon appeared in KBS daily dr=
ama Home for Summer in 2019, since then he is appearing in present TV serie=
s for KBS. The script reading site was revealed on February 9, 2023.[32]</d=
iv><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div>download dra=
ma korea the real deal has come</div><div></div><div>DOWNLOAD: https://t.co=
/9LryU75gkl </div><div></div><div></div><div>As a result of a comprehensive=
 coverage of broadcasting officials by My Daily on the 10th, it was confirm=
ed that Baek Jin-hee was cast as the female lead in KBS 2TV's weekend drama=
 'The real thing has appeared!' An official from the agency, Endmark, has o=
nly conveyed the position that "we are reviewing it positively."</div><div>=
</div><div></div><div>'The real thing has appeared!' is the sequel to the 5=
0-episode 'Three Siblings Brave' and is scheduled to air in the first half =
of 2023. Baek Jin-hee is returning to the small screen after 4 years since =
the KBS 2TV drama 'It's Okay to Die', which aired in 2018.</div><div></div>=
<div></div><div>Baek Jin-hee is making a comeback to the small screen after=
 4 years after the end of the KBS drama 'It's Okay to Die'. She also made h=
er comeback as a KBS drama, which happened coincidentally. While playing th=
e role of her single mother in the play, she will break away from her previ=
ous youthful image and show her viewers a different side.</div><div></div><=
div></div><div>"The Real Deal Has Come" will be Cha Joo Young's comeback to=
 KBS weekend K-dramas after seven years. She last appeared in a KBS weekend=
 series in 2016. She was part of the K-drama "The Gentlemen of Wolgyesu Tai=
lor Shop."</div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div=
></div><div>With the fall of 2023 approaching, the release schedules of Kor=
ean dramas have become denser, possibly to wrap up the episodes before the =
year ends. Especially with so many intriguing dramas on the horizon, there =
is no room for further delays. As a result, the coming months will be loade=
d with some fascinating dramas, ranging from highly anticipated sequels to =
fan-favorite romantic stories.</div><div></div><div></div><div>It is not ve=
ry often that we come across a South Korean drama with a serious take on re=
al-life historical events. Goryeo-Khitan War is a drama that depicts the se=
cond and third periods of the Goryeo-Khitan War, which took place during th=
e tenth and eleventh centuries between the Liao dynasty of China and the Go=
ryeo dynasty of Korea.</div><div></div><div></div><div>While romance K-dram=
as are in a league of their own, South Korean thrillers, especially those f=
eaturing serial killers, are second to none, as evidenced by Connect and I =
Saw the Devil. A Bloody Lucky Day is a psychological thriller drama produce=
d by TVING that tells the story of an ordinary taxi driver named Oh Taek (L=
ee Sung Min) who, after being promised an extremely high fare to transport =
a certain passenger to Mokpo, realizes that the hirer is a serial killer, b=
ut it is too late to back down. What would Oh Taek do to survive the situat=
ion?</div><div></div><div></div><div>Time Travel dramas are a great deal in=
 South Korea, and a number of titles in this genre, such as The King: Etern=
al Monarch, Tail of the Nine-Tailed, and A Time Called You, attain enormous=
 success every year. If you've enjoyed any of the dramas listed above, then=
 The Story of Park's Marriage Contract may be right up your alley.</div><di=
v></div><div></div><div>Amid the restless back and forth of the past weeks,=
 the United States and North Korea have agreed to continue to work on the p=
reparations for the coming summit. But now, it seems they have come to a re=
al deal: Which comes first, complete, verifiable, and irreversible denuclea=
rization (CVID), or security and economic assurance?</div><div></div><div><=
/div><div>Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you and good evening. The s=
ponsor has been identified, but unlike most television programs, the perfor=
mer hasn't been provided with a script. As a matter of fact, I have been pe=
rmitted to choose my own words and discuss my own ideas regarding the choic=
e that we face in the next few weeks.</div><div></div><div></div><div></div=
><div>I have spent most of my life as a Democrat. I recently have seen fit =
to follow another course. I believe that the issues confronting us cross pa=
rty lines. Now, one side in this campaign has been telling us that the issu=
es of this election are the maintenance of peace and prosperity. The line h=
as been used, "We've never had it so good."</div><div></div><div></div><div=
></div><div>But I have an uncomfortable feeling that this prosperity isn't =
something on which we can base our hopes for the future. No nation in histo=
ry has ever survived a tax burden that reached a third of its national inco=
me. Today, 37 cents out of every dollar earned in this country is the tax c=
ollector's share, and yet our government continues to spend 17 million doll=
ars a day more than the government takes in. We haven't balanced our budget=
 28 out of the last 34 years. We've raised our debt limit three times in th=
e last twelve months, and now our national debt is one and a half times big=
ger than all the combined debts of all the nations of the world. We have 15=
 billion dollars in gold in our treasury; we don't own an ounce. Foreign do=
llar claims are 27.3 billion dollars. And we've just had announced that the=
 dollar of 1939 will now purchase 45 cents in its total value.</div><div></=
div><div></div><div></div><div>As for the peace that we would preserve, I w=
onder who among us would like to approach the wife or mother whose husband =
or son has died in South Vietnam and ask them if they think this is a peace=
 that should be maintained indefinitely. Do they mean peace, or do they mea=
n we just want to be left in peace? There can be no real peace while one Am=
erican is dying some place in the world for the rest of us. We're at war wi=
th the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind in his long climb f=
rom the swamp to the stars, and it's been said if we lose that war, and in =
so doing lose this way of freedom of ours, history will record with the gre=
atest astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to pre=
vent its happening. Well I think it's time we ask ourselves if we still kno=
w the freedoms that were intended for us by the Founding Fathers.</div><div=
></div><div></div><div></div><div>Not too long ago, two friends of mine wer=
e talking to a Cuban refugee, a businessman who had escaped from Castro, an=
d in the midst of his story one of my friends turned to the other and said,=
 "We don't know how lucky we are." And the Cuban stopped and said, "How luc=
ky you are? I had someplace to escape to." And in that sentence he told us =
the entire story. If we lose freedom here, there's no place to escape to. T=
his is the last stand on earth.</div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div>=
And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no oth=
er source of power except the sovereign people, is still the newest and the=
 most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man.</div><d=
iv></div><div></div><div></div><div>This is the issue of this election: Whe=
ther we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon t=
he American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a fa=
r-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ou=
rselves.</div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div>You and I are told incr=
easingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I'd like to sugges=
t there is no such thing as a left or right. There's only an up or down - [=
up] man's old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent wit=
h law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless=
 of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our =
freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.</div><div></div=
><div></div><div></div><div>In this vote-harvesting time, they use terms li=
ke the "Great Society," or as we were told a few days ago by the President,=
 we must accept a greater government activity in the affairs of the people.=
 But they've been a little more explicit in the past and among themselves; =
and all of the things I now will quote have appeared in print. These are no=
t Republican accusations. For example, they have voices that say, "The cold=
 war will end through our acceptance of a not undemocratic socialism." Anot=
her voice says, "The profit motive has become outmoded. It must be replaced=
 by the incentives of the welfare state." Or, "Our traditional system of in=
dividual freedom is incapable of solving the complex problems of the 20th c=
entury." Senator Fullbright has said at Stanford University that the Consti=
tution is outmoded. He referred to the President as "our moral teacher and =
our leader," and he says he is "hobbled in his task by the restrictions of =
power imposed on him by this antiquated document." He must "be freed," so t=
hat he "can do for us" what he knows "is best." And Senator Clark of Pennsy=
lvania, another articulate spokesman, defines liberalism as "meeting the ma=
terial needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government=
."</div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div>Well, I, for one, resent it w=
hen a representative of the people refers to you and me, the free men and w=
omen of this country, as "the masses." This is a term we haven't applied to=
 ourselves in America. But beyond that, "the full power of centralized gove=
rnment"this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. The=
y knew that governments don't control things. A government can't control th=
e economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets =
out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They=
 also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate function=
s, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector=
 of the economy.</div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div>Now, we have no=
 better example of this than government's involvement in the farm economy o=
ver the last 30 years. Since 1955, the cost of this program has nearly doub=
led. One-fourth of farming in America is responsible for 85 percent of the =
farm surplus. Three-fourths of farming is out on the free market and has kn=
own a 21 percent increase in the per capita consumption of all its produce.=
 You see, that one-fourth of farming that's regulated and controlled by the=
 federal government. In the last three years we've spent 43 dollars in the =
feed grain program for every dollar bushel of corn we don't grow.</div><div=
></div><div></div><div></div><div>Senator Humphrey last week charged that B=
arry Goldwater, as President, would seek to eliminate farmers. He should do=
 his homework a little better, because he'll find out that we've had a decl=
ine of 5 million in the farm population under these government programs. He=
'll also find that the Democratic administration has sought to get from Con=
gress [an] extension of the farm program to include that three-fourths that=
 is now free. He'll find that they've also asked for the right to imprison =
farmers who wouldn't keep books as prescribed by the federal government. Th=
e Secretary of Agriculture asked for the right to seize farms through conde=
mnation and resell them to other individuals. And contained in that same pr=
ogram was a provision that would have allowed the federal government to rem=
ove 2 million farmers from the soil.</div><div></div><div></div><div></div>=
<div>At the same time, there's been an increase in the Department of Agricu=
lture employees. There's now one for every 30 farms in the United States, a=
nd still they can't tell us how 66 shiploads of grain headed for Austria di=
sappeared without a trace and Billie Sol Estes never left shore.</div><div>=
</div><div></div><div></div><div>Every responsible farmer and farm organiza=
tion has repeatedly asked the government to free the farm economy, but how =
- who are farmers to know what's best for them? The wheat farmers voted aga=
inst a wheat program. The government passed it anyway. Now the price of bre=
ad goes up; the price of wheat to the farmer goes down.</div><div></div><di=
v></div><div></div><div>Meanwhile, back in the city, under urban renewal th=
e assault on freedom carries on. Private property rights [are] so diluted t=
hat public interest is almost anything a few government planners decide it =
should be. In a program that takes from the needy and gives to the greedy, =
we see such spectacles as in Cleveland, Ohio, a million-and-a-half-dollar b=
uilding completed only three years ago must be destroyed to make way for wh=
at government officials call a "more compatible use of the land." The Presi=
dent tells us he's now going to start building public housing units in the =
thousands, where heretofore we've only built them in the hundreds. But FHA =
[Federal Housing Authority] and the Veterans Administration tell us they ha=
ve 120,000 housing units they've taken back through mortgage foreclosure. F=
or three decades, we've sought to solve the problems of unemployment throug=
h government planning, and the more the plans fail, the more the planners p=
lan. The latest is the Area Redevelopment Agency.</div><div></div><div></di=
v><div></div><div>They've just declared Rice County, Kansas, a depressed ar=
ea. Rice County, Kansas, has two hundred oil wells, and the 14,000 people t=
here have over 30 million dollars on deposit in personal savings in their b=
anks. And when the government tells you you're depressed, lie down and be d=
epressed.</div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div>We have so many people=
 who can't see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the c=
onclusion the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one. So =
they're going to solve all the problems of human misery through government =
and government planning. Well, now, if government planning and welfare had =
the answer - and they've had almost 30 years of it - shouldn't we expect go=
vernment to read the score to us once in a while? Shouldn't they be telling=
 us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? The r=
eduction in the need for public housing?</div><div></div><div></div><div></=
div><div>But the reverse is true. Each year the need grows greater; the pro=
gram grows greater. We were told four years ago that 17 million people went=
 to bed hungry each night. Well that was probably true. They were all on a =
diet. But now we're told that 9.3 million families in this country are pove=
rty-stricken on the basis of earning less than 3,000 dollars a year. Welfar=
e spending [is] 10 times greater than in the dark depths of the Depression.=
 We're spending 45 billion dollars on welfare. Now do a little arithmetic, =
and you'll find that if we divided the 45 billion dollars up equally among =
those 9 million poor families, we'd be able to give each family 4,600 dolla=
rs a year. And this added to their present income should eliminate poverty.=
 Direct aid to the poor, however, is only running only about 600 dollars pe=
r family. It would seem that someplace there must be some overhead.</div><d=
iv></div><div></div><div></div><div>Now, so now we declare "war on poverty,=
" or "You, too, can be a Bobby Baker." Now do they honestly expect us to be=
lieve that if we add 1 billion dollars to the 45 billion we're spending, on=
e more program to the 30-odd we have -and remember, this new program doesn'=
t replace any, it just duplicates existing programs - do they believe that =
poverty is suddenly going to disappear by magic? Well, in all fairness I sh=
ould explain there is one part of the new program that isn't duplicated. Th=
is is the youth feature. We're now going to solve the dropout problem, juve=
nile delinquency, by reinstituting something like the old CCC camps [Civili=
an Conservation Corps], and we're going to put our young people in these ca=
mps. But again we do some arithmetic, and we find that we're going to spend=
 each year just on room and board for each young person we help 4,700 dolla=
rs a year. We can send them to Harvard for 2,700! Course, don't get me wron=
g. I'm not suggesting Harvard is the answer to juvenile delinquency.</div><=
div></div><div></div><div></div><div>But seriously, what are we doing to th=
ose we seek to help? Not too long ago, a judge called me here in Los Angele=
s. He told me of a young woman who'd come before him for a divorce. She had=
 six children, was pregnant with her seventh. Under his questioning, she re=
vealed her husband was a laborer earning 250 dollars a month. She wanted a =
divorce to get an 80 dollar raise. She's eligible for 330 dollars a month i=
n the Aid to Dependent Children Program. She got the idea from two women in=
 her neighborhood who'd already done that very thing.</div><div></div><div>=
</div><div></div><div>Yet anytime you and I question the schemes of the do-=
gooders, we're denounced as being against their humanitarian goals. They sa=
y we're always "against" things - we're never "for" anything.</div><div></d=
iv><div></div><div></div><div>Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is=
 not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.=
</div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div>Now, we're for a provision that=
 destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age, and to th=
at end we've accepted Social Security as a step toward meeting the problem.=
</div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div>But we're against those entrust=
ed with this program when they practice deception regarding its fiscal shor=
tcomings, when they charge that any criticism of the program means that we =
want to end payments to those people who depend on them for a livelihood. T=
hey've called it "insurance" to us in a hundred million pieces of literatur=
e. But then they appeared before the Supreme Court and they testified it wa=
s a welfare program. They only use the term "insurance" to sell it to the p=
eople. And they said Social Security dues are a tax for the general use of =
the government, and the government has used that tax. There is no fund, bec=
ause Robert Byers, the actuarial head, appeared before a congressional comm=
ittee and admitted that Social Security as of this moment is 298 billion do=
llars in the hole. But he said there should be no cause for worry because a=
s long as they have the power to tax, they could always take away from the =
people whatever they needed to bail them out of trouble. And they're doing =
just that.</div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div>A young man, 21 years=
 of age, working at an average salary - his Social Security contribution wo=
uld, in the open market, buy him an insurance policy that would guarantee 2=
20 dollars a month at age 65. The government promises 127. He could live it=
 up until he's 31 and then take out a policy that would pay more than Socia=
l Security. Now are we so lacking in business sense that we can't put this =
program on a sound basis, so that people who do require those payments will=
 find they can get them when they're due, that the cupboard isn't bare?</di=
v><div></div><div></div><div></div><div>Barry Goldwater thinks we can.</div=
><div></div><div></div><div></div><div>At the same time, can't we introduce=
 voluntary features that would permit a citizen who can do better on his ow=
n to be excused upon presentation of evidence that he had made provision fo=
r the non-earning years? Should we not allow a widow with children to work,=
 and not lose the benefits supposedly paid for by her deceased husband? Sho=
uldn't you and I be allowed to declare who our beneficiaries will be under =
this program, which we cannot do? I think we're for telling our senior citi=
zens that no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a=
 lack of funds. But I think we're against forcing all citizens, regardless =
of need, into a compulsory government program, especially when we have such=
 examples, as was announced last week, when France admitted that their Medi=
care program is now bankrupt. They've come to the end of the road.</div><di=
v></div><div></div><div></div><div>In addition, was Barry Goldwater so irre=
sponsible when he suggested that our government give up its program of deli=
berate, planned inflation, so that when you do get your Social Security pen=
sion, a dollar will buy a dollar's worth, and not 45 cents worth?</div><div=
></div><div></div><div></div><div>I think we're for an international organi=
zation, where the nations of the world can seek peace. But I think we're ag=
ainst subordinating American interests to an organization that has become s=
o structurally unsound that today you can muster a two-thirds vote on the f=
loor of the General Assembly among nations that represent less than 10 perc=
ent of the world's population. I think we're against the hypocrisy of assai=
ling our allies because here and there they cling to a colony, while we eng=
age in a conspiracy of silence and never open our mouths about the millions=
 of people enslaved in the Soviet colonies in the sate</div>