posted
Making a law that says "If you're going to have a separation referendum, you have to word the question unambiguously" isn't the same thing as making it illegal to separate. It's fine to oppose the law itself, but don't call it something it isn't.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
It's essentially making it illegal because the government knows that the PQ will never be able ot get 90% saying "OUI! VIVRE LA REPUBLIQUE DU QUEBEC!"
IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know where you got that 90% number, but as far as I'm aware that isn't the case. I don't know of any significant changes to federal laws regarding secession of provinces since the Clarity Act. Nonetheless, "essentially" making it illegal is not making it illegal.
I think what you're talking about is interpreting the Clarity Act (which does say "clear majority") to mean 90%+. It doesn't say that.
Added:
Look, you wrote:
quote:Canada even has enacted laws to make it illegal for Quebec to separate, where's the denounciation of Canada?
This is simply not true.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
I would have to say if there was only one thing that I could change it would be to make Congress accountable for the money that it spends. If Congress is held responsible for all of the money it wastes, things would be very different indeed. Do we really need to pay for airline tickets that never get used? 139,000+ tickets have been purchased and unused since 2001 alone.... think of how much money that is in reimbursements...that can still be claimed, but have not been as of yet. Why is tax payer money paying for "diplomatic trips" (for a family of 5) on a Carribean cruise, or to Rio De Janeiro? Things like this are written off as "important diplomatic ventures". I can't afford that kind of a trip, why should my tax dollars be used to send someone else ( and their family) on a trip! Why are millions of dollars being spent on roadways that no one travels in rural West Virginia, yet those that are heavily traveled in the Northeast have potholes the size of Texas and nothing is done? I can't stand pork barrel spending.
Next gripe: I think those representing the people should read every darned page of every bill that they are voting on. Most of the time they don't see the asinine things that are added to the bill after the first 10 pages. (Like Alaska's rep naming the bill after his wife and then demanding that one of the so called "bridges to nowhere" be named after himself!)
The current voting system was set up because back in the days of our Founding Fathers most people couldn't read or write...the Founding Fathers thought them ignorant and didn't want ignorant people ( being the majority) making important decisions. Thus the electoral college and all that came into being...that way the educated people would actually make the decisions... no matter what the ignorant population thought should be done, the Founding Fathers were saving the masses from themselves... I mean come on - everyone knows that people are sheep, they need someone to lead them and make all their decisions for them! (Completely tongue in cheek - please don't take offense.) Posts: 325 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok when a people rebel, expect some casualties.
So wait, let me get this straight. After a completely immoral and illegitimate invasion, the oppressed peoples rebel. The invaders crush the rebellion, and slaughter tens of thousands of people. And you dismiss this as 'expected casualties'? China has no culpability in this whatsoever?
While I think Noam's views in regards to Israel is extreme, nevertheless I see nothing made up about his sources or figures in regards to America's international terrorism in various south and central American countries, and I'm pretty sure its common knowledge as well, that you may never have heard of it tells that you probly never reserched the matter yourself.
I grew up in Berkeley, CA. I've taken many, many classes at a community college just off the UC Berkeley Campus. It seems to me that the requirement for teaching there is that you be even more extremely leftist than the professors at the UC.
So yes, I am very familiar with Chomsky's beliefs. I grew up believing them. It took a good amount of experience before I realized how insane his worldview is. To share it, you must put an absurd amount of faith in the nefarious and duplicitous nature of everyone except the people who agree with Noam Chomsky. His conspiracy theories require that you adamantly refuse to believe any official report, dismissing them as government lies, and instead swallow whole every source that paints the US as machiavellian imperialists. No matter how ridiculous the source may be.
Which, come to think of it, explains rather well why you called US terrorism 'common knowledge.'
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
But it is, its comon knwoledge that Saddam was a CIA asset, it was common knowledge that the US supplied him with weapons in the Iraq-Iran war, and also supplied him with the gas he used on the kurds.
Also the US told the kurds to rebel against iraq and did nothing to help except to say to Saddam "Don't use helicopters".
"So wait, let me get this straight. After a completely immoral and illegitimate invasion, the oppressed peoples rebel. The invaders crush the rebellion, and slaughter tens of thousands of people. And you dismiss this as 'expected casualties'? China has no culpability in this whatsoever?"
Assuming that its even close to being considered an invasion. The UN and International Courts of wars do not consider it as an invasion but the reoccupation of Soverign territory that has been a part of China 700 years ago.
Next, the rebel movement was spear headed BY the CIA just as they had spear headed a movement in Gautemala against a democratically elected socialist president... see the pattern?
And I don't even know why we're arguing this, China will NEVER ascent to give up Tibet, the Chinese people will never acsent to it, and even the KMT reactionaries have never given up claims to Tibet as well.
The CCP won the civil war thanks to the brilliance and adaptability of Mao and his subordinates and the support of the Chinese people and for good or ill still possess the support of the Chinese people because the new generation look around and see how bad things were in their great grand parents time and see how much better things are now... They know the CCP is doing dispite massive problems and some serious setbacks a genuinly good job at not only keep Chinese soverignty together but also at economic development of the country and at improving living standards.
And as for Fulon Gong they're founder declares himself God of the Known Universe on occasion and that they don't need to go to hospitols for cancer treatments. Not even worth debate or conversation.
"This is simply not true." What do you mean? If you don't consider this valid what about the "oppression" of the chechnyans? What about human rights issues in India or Pakistan? We never hear about those.
The only reason why people focus on China is because China is the next up and coming super power and America is scared that they're be another great power to challenge their hard won supremacy.
To my mind, if you can't work gard enough with good enough quality and people in a foreign country can do it better expect to lose one or two jobs, expect the torch to pass to them, if America wants to keep its position abolish the electorial college, reinvigoratre you infastructure and restore funding to welfare programs and triple the educational budget and get some good quality teachers for a bloody change.
If you can't do those and if China can I think its fairly self explaning.
IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
"So yes, I am very familiar with Chomsky's beliefs. I grew up believing them. It took a good amount of experience before I realized how insane his worldview is. To share it, you must put an absurd amount of faith in the nefarious and duplicitous nature of everyone except the people who agree with Noam Chomsky. His conspiracy theories require that you adamantly refuse to believe any official report, dismissing them as government lies, and instead swallow whole every source that paints the US as machiavellian imperialists. No matter how ridiculous the source may be."
I ignore biased conspiracy theories when I see them, like when I heard that a teacher over in Alberta was teaching his students that Jews were planning to take over the world and put forward the Protocals of Zion (i think that was what he sighted) and used ass backwards logic that if academia said it was a fake then it meant that the conspiracy went farther then people realized; I was stunned and my first reaction that him and all others like him should've been shot.
Damn freedom of speach, if it gives people like that the ability to spew garbage.
IP: Logged |
quote: And as for Fulon Gong they're founder declares himself God of the Known Universe on occasion and that they don't need to go to hospitols for cancer treatments. Not even worth debate or conversation.
Why not?
quote: I was stunned and my first reaction that him and all others like him should've been shot.
That's very Chinese of you.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
starLisa... I don't think you'ld appreciate it if people went around and yelled "Sieg Heil!" or "Heil Hitler!" in reply to your posts would you?
But ya I understand that your intentions were meant in jest so its cool between us.
IP: Logged |
posted
I think that Italy should take the necessary steps to excercise their claims on Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East. Heathens hold the holy city of Constantinople. If some of them die in the reconquest, it can only be expected and encouraged.
Mongolia and Nationalist China can fight over Red China. Japan can have Korea. Spain and Portugal can carve up South America. Germany and Russia can partition Poland. If France beats off Italy they should launch an invasion of Normandy at once. A thousand years ago, Norway ruled over northern England, they need to renew their claim.
Mexico can seek to reclaim their losses from America. But America would probably just lop of another chunk of Mexico.
Posts: 413 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I'm mocking and helping you, Blayne. I mean, I'm basically condensing your views on the 'People's' Republic of China into a more easily said two-word catchy slogan.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
If they invade and occupy canada then I might be inclined to yell it out, but for now I find it patronizing/condenscending.
think that Italy should take the necessary steps to excercise their claims on Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East. Heathens hold the holy city of Constantinople. If some of them die in the reconquest, it can only be expected and encouraged.
"Mongolia and Nationalist China can fight over Red China. Japan can have Korea. Spain and Portugal can carve up South America. Germany and Russia can partition Poland. If France beats off Italy they should launch an invasion of Normandy at once. A thousand years ago, Norway ruled over northern England, they need to renew their claim.
Mexico can seek to reclaim their losses from America. But America would probably just lop of another chunk of Mexico."
Ahh but hear's the thing, the only semi true one is the NAT Chi/Mongolia scenario, but in the case of the Mongols, they became Chinese and were absorbed and the only reason why they didn't become a part of China was because of Soviet pressure.
Next, NatChi/Republic of China still haven't officially given up claims on the mainland, they still consider themselves China officially, with both pro-independance and pro-unification movements happening at the same time.
Next, Poland was already particianed after WWII when the border was moved westwards and Konigsburg passed to Russian administration.
Next, you forgot to add Poland's past 16th century claims on eastern europe and russia.
But the point is that China has claims on Area's that weren't just historicaly part of China, but were legally part of China, no one recognized Tibets sovereignty, and since Richard nixon's administration and recently the late 90's now Taiwan isn't recognized as well.
The other main difference between those cases is that Frenchmen are not italians, neither are romanians etc. Taiwan is 98% Han Chinese mainland China is 92% INCLUDING Tibet.
The lands China had reclaimed were historically part of China, legally part of China and thus China.
Arguements over Tibetan soverignty are pointless, for good or ill it is a part of China and no chinese government will ever ever EVER give it up in another war without the thought of losing the support of the people.
IP: Logged |
posted
The large reason Tibet is such a high percentage Han Chinese is because China settled vast numbers of Chinese there (for the obvious reason; they'd outgrown China proper).
It is true Tibet will not be free in any near future.
However, Tibet is hardly rightfully part of China. Not too long (in historical terms) before the successful invasion, in fact, Tibet had expelled all Chinese troops.
Our solid history of Tibet says it was independent from 120-some years BC to 842 AD or so, and likely for a good while before that. During the 8th century, Tibet even took the Chinese capital and seated a new, Tibetan-friendly Emperor.
Depending who you listen to, Tibet was either a friend of the Mongol horde, or a puppet nation. Notably, Tibetan monks converted (among others) Kublai Khan to Buddhism. Officially, Tibet was a sovereign nation ruled by a sovereign ruler, though they had little need for a military with the horde as friends. This as after a couple hundred tumultuous years after the fall of their very successful dynasty.
For a couple hundred years after that, China was the de-facto controller of Tibet, by proxy. In the mid-1600's, the Dalai Lama became ruler of Tibet and was recognized by the current Ming emperor in China. I should note that this right here severs any previous claim China may have had -- when you give up your claims, you don't get to continue their pursuit.
The Manchu dynasty invaded Tibet a bit after this, but only succeeded in putting a pseudo-puppet in place -- an ambassador with abundant influence. The distributed nature of Tibetan culture meant the puppet had little control, and he was attacked repeatedly (as in, by armies). Tibet retained a sovereign government, and while some of its rulers bowed significantly to Manchu influence, others defied it successfully.
China tried to allow the British into Tibet three times near the end of this period, but Tibet did not let them in.
Due to fears about Russian influence, Britain invaded Tibet at the turn of the twentieth century. China did not assert any rights over Tibet.
After this invasion, China invaded. Shortly after the Chinese invasion, though, a certain movement in China caused their forces to go into chaos. Tibet organized and kicked the Chinese out, and asserted full independence, which it exercised until the Communist invasion.
Yes, Tibet has often been dominated in part by China. It has historically enjoyed long periods of full sovereignty, though, was until the Communist invasion populated by a people who could be clearly identified as Tibetan and not Chinese, culturally, and has (had, perhaps, but we'll talk about up to the last Chinese invasion) as much a claim to independent existence as any nation in the history of the earth.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I'm sorry some if not all of your information is wrong.
The Chinese dynasties did not give the Dalai Lama soverignty they gave him basically vassal status, essentially an advisory position due to the holy nature of Tibet for buddism.
"After 1907, a treaty between Britain, China, and Russia recognized Chinese sovereignty over Tibet."
"as Chinese troops had to withdraw to their homeland to fight in the 1911 Revolution, giving the Dalai Lama the opportunity to re-establish control. In 1913, Tibet and Mongolia signed a treaty proclaiming mutual recognition and their independence from China. In 1914 a treaty was negotiated in India by representatives of China, Tibet and Britain: the Simla Convention. Chinese suzerainty over Tibet and Tibetan autonomy were both recognized and a boundary negotiated between British India and Tibet which was very generous to Britain. The treaty was privately signed by Britain and Tibet; however, the Chinese side refused to sign the agreement, viewing it as being too yielding. China has never recognized the agreement nor the boundary set by it, thus paving the way to the Arunachal Pradesh dispute between China and India today."
"The Mongols again invaded at the start of the 16th century, declaring the remaining religious lineage, that of the Dalai Lamas, to be the official government.
"By the early 18th century China established the right to have resident commissioners, called amban, in Lhasa. When the Tibetans rebelled against the Chinese in 1750 and killed the amban, a Chinese army entered the country and installed a new amban, but the Tibetan government continued to manage day-to-day affairs as before.
In 1904 the British sent a largely Indian military force and seized Lhasa, forcing Tibet to open a border crossing with British India. A 1906 treaty with China repeated these conditions, making Tibet a de facto British protectorate. There was also a Nepalese mission in Lhasa remaining from a similar invasion by Nepal in 1855."
I don't see where Britain invaded and got repulsed 3 times, I don't see when the Ming gave Tibet full soverignty and independance.
And I don't see how any Chinese government tried to let the British in, all I see were attempts by any Chinese government to keep the Brittish OUT.
"Due to fears about Russian influence, Britain invaded Tibet at the turn of the twentieth century. China did not assert any rights over Tibet."
"In 1904 the British sent a largely Indian military force and seized Lhasa, forcing Tibet to open a border crossing with British India. A 1906 treaty with China repeated these conditions, making Tibet a de facto British protectorate. There was also a Nepalese mission in Lhasa remaining from a similar invasion by Nepal in 1855.
After 1907, a treaty between Britain, China, and Russia recognized Chinese sovereignty over Tibet. The Chinese established direct rule for the first time in 1910."
As I'll state from this quote a second time the Chinese held sovereignty over Tibet and was thus recognized by the major powers. The British may have forced trade routes but they did not invade and establish a zone of control like in Africa, soverignty was still loosely in the hands of the Chinese Empire.
And later, the Republic of China and by succession of states thoery drafted in the late 90's the People's Republic.
"It has historically enjoyed long periods of full sovereignty, though, was until the Communist invasion populated by a people who could be clearly identified as Tibetan and not Chinese, culturally, and has (had, perhaps, but we'll talk about up to the last Chinese invasion) as much a claim to independent existence as any nation in the history of the earth."
So have the Indians, what about them? And it wasn't an invasion it was a reoccupation of land formally belonging to the Republic of China according to the 1921 Constitution of the ROC.
Also, it doesn't matter if they were independant pre-13th century, since their incorporation into the Yuan Dynasty they have always been a part of China, either de jure or de facto.
"despite periods of autonomy, such as between 1912 and 1951. Moreover, the PRC contends that even during this period (1912-1951) commonly held to be the last period of Tibetan independence, China continued to maintain sovereignty over Tibet; no country gave Tibet diplomatic recognition; and other signs of Tibetan acknowledgement of Chinese sovereignty were present, e.g. the presence of Tibetan delegates in 1947 in Nanjing to take part in the drafting of a new constitution for the Republic of China."
"However, the PRC government does not view itself as an occupying power and has vehemently denied allegations of demographic swamping. The PRC also does not recognize the borders of Tibet as claimed by the government of Tibet in Exile, saying that it was devised to deliberately include non-Tibetan areas populated by non-Tibetans for generations (such as the Xining area and the Chaidam Basin) in order to enhance the perception that Tibetans are now outnumbered in Tibet. The PRC gives the number of Tibetans in Tibet Autonomous Region as 2.4 million, as opposed to 190,000 non-Tibetans, and the number of Tibetans in all Tibetan autonomous entities combined (slightly smaller than the Greater Tibet claimed by exiled Tibetans) as 5.0 million, as opposed to 2.3 million non-Tibetans. In the TAR itself, much of the Han Chinese population is to be found in Lhasa. Population control policies like the one-child policy only apply to Han Chinese, not to minorities such as Tibetans. The PRC says that it is dedicated to the protection of traditional Tibetan culture; it also groups the Qingzang Railway, renovation work at the Potala Palace, and other projects as part of the China Western Development Strategy, a costly effort by the wealthier, eastern half of China to develop the poorer, western regions."
This also disproves the allegations of Tibetans being outnumbered, but there is neevrthless a large enough Han Chinese minority that why should the PRC give up land with Han Chinese living in it?
posted
"Our solid history of Tibet says it was independent from 120-some years BC to 842 AD or so, and likely for a good while before that. During the 8th century, Tibet even took the Chinese capital and seated a new, Tibetan-friendly Emperor."
"Little is known of Tibet before the 7th century, though the Tibetan language is generally considered to be a Tibeto-Burman language and related distantly to Chinese."
posted
You seem to be a fan of wikipedia for references on everything. I guess HRW doesn't meet your standards of evaluation for the PRC?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You didn't even read all of the Wikipedia page, Blayne:
quote:The Chinese established direct rule for the first time in 1910. It was not to last long, however, as Chinese troops had to withdraw to their homeland to fight in the 1911 Revolution, giving the Dalai Lama the opportunity to re-establish control. In 1913, Tibet and Mongolia signed a treaty proclaiming mutual recognition and their independence from China.
quote:The subsequent outbreak of World War I and civil war in China caused the Western powers and China to lose interest in Tibet, and the 13th Dalai Lama ruled undisturbed. At that time the government of Tibet controlled all of Ü-Tsang (Dbus-gtsang) and western Kham (Khams), roughly coincident with the borders of Tibet Autonomous Region today.
As for the period starting a bit before 120 BC: http://www.haiweitrails.com/timeline_tibet.htm Note the reign of the 1000 year dynasty starts in 127 BC. Note in 753, well into known history, Tibet siezed the Chinese capital and forced China to pay tribute. Perhaps China should be a part of Tibet (note that I think this is as absurd as Tibet being rightfully a part of China. Whatever rights China has asserted over Tibet in the past due to its strength, Tibet had a strong national identity until China started dumping Chinese there and destroying Tibetan cultural institutions).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Human Rights Watch, BB. The organization that keeps track of human rights status all over the world (including most definitely America-read their website before you start complaining of anti-Chinese 'bias'), which includes the routine and flagrant violation of all sorts of rights which you as a Canadian live under today, but which aren't as important for PRC peasants.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
SHANGHAI, Nov. 5 -- Judicial authorities in Beijing have shut down the law firm of a prominent civil rights lawyer after he refused to withdraw an open letter urging President Hu Jintao to respect freedom of religion and stop persecuting members of the banned Falun Gong spiritual movement.
Gao Zhisheng, among the most daring of a generation of self-trained lawyers who have been pushing the Chinese government to obey its own laws, said that the Beijing Bureau of Justice ordered his firm suspended for one year on Friday. The move came just hours after he filed an appeal on behalf of an underground Protestant pastor accused of illegally printing Bibles and other Christian literature.
According to Gao, the government said the firm was being suspended because it had failed to register with the authorities after moving into a new office this year. But he said the action followed his refusal to renounce the open letter to Hu and withdraw from politically sensitive cases as demanded by officials during a series of recent meetings.
Chinese authorities have blocked a pro-democracy Web log after it was nominated for a freedom of expression award by a German radio station, a press freedom group said yesterday.
The blog, titled Wang Yi's Microphone, dealt with "sensitive subjects" and was maintained by a teacher from Sichuan province, Paris-based Reporters Without Borders said in a statement.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
If you reread what I put up I did read and quote it, but right to reestablish control is not the same thing as independance, and declarign independance when you still contribute to the countries soverighty ie: going to Nanjing to help draft a constitution for China kinda negates it.
As for the Human rights watch I'm well aware of what it is and that it critizes america as well.
But there are main cultural and historical differences between Canada and China, China had gown through civil wars, marauding warlords and power politics between provinces, then there's the foerign invasions, unequal treaties, and zones of control, China was being smothered by Western Imperialism and later Japanese Imperialism, acculminating with the 1985 Sino-Japanese war where Formosa ie: Taiwan was taken away as well as its influence in Korea and Manchuria.
Then came furthur civil wars, falied revolutions and farce democracies whose only purpose had been to increase the suffering of the people, and the West stood idly by and watched it all happen, even sent in troops to keep the Chinese people down in the Cities.
In 1937 Japan Invaded, still recovering from the Long March Mao Tse-tung, Zhou Enlai, and the rest of the Chinese Communist Party were able to utilizing guerilla tactics, and the national fervor against the Japanese to bring the Red Army's membership from barely 10,000 to 500,000 men, and they continued fighting on for years and successfuly maintained the Unified Front against the Japanese with the GMD and other groups.
After Japan surrendered and Russia let the Communists into Manchuria, talks began between Mao and Chiang Kai Shek for the establishment of a coalitition government to govern the people of China, essentially would've created a multiparty state right then, except Chiang refused and for the next few years Mao and the CCP fought against all odds, numbers, American aid to Chiang, etc.
The result was that Mao through utilizing the will of the people and the popular masses of the peasants and the stratagems of Sun Tzu to change the numical suporiority of Chiang to a inferiority, and through Chiang's alienation of so many people mass deserters joined the Red Army and even Chiang's own Transportation and Supply Corp gave most of the American equipment over to Mao throughtout the war.
Mao and the CCP won, while brilliance, adaptability, and the skill of the Red Army's commanders all had it effects, the deciding factor was the will of the people and the people wanted Mao not Chiang.
Within years of Liberation of 1949 and the declaration of the founding of the People's Republic of China, slavery was abolished, universal sufferage at age 18 was granted, the aids epidemic was curtailed and reduced to only .01% of the population.
Finally at peace with itself the Chinese econmy in heavy and light industry can prosper, even the GLF which if thought to have been a failure did record a 45% increase in steel production and the swelling of the urban populace to 15% of the total population.
Since 1978, China has known increasing prosperity, China is today the worlds fastest growing market and driven primarily by consumer demand can keep on growing.
Democracy has been spreading in China dispite setbacks such as Tiannemin, but China is coming out into the world stronger then ever before and within 50-100 years according to some will achieve super power status, other's place it at 20 years. Considering that optimistic sources put China's GDP at "exceeding 4 trillion by 2020" has exceeded 7-8 trillion today.
The Chinese are becomming more democratic and open at their own pace, complaining about them won't make it any faster.
IP: Logged |
quote: Within years of Liberation of 1949 and the declaration of the founding of the People's Republic of China, slavery was abolished, universal sufferage at age 18 was granted, the aids epidemic was curtailed and reduced to only .01% of the population.
This sentence makes my brain hurt, Blayne. I think I know what you're saying, but I'm not sure.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's frankly sickening that you label something like T Square a 'setback'.
It wasn't a 'setback', BB. It was a brutal, murderous, bloody-handed crackdown on publicly expressed (and NONVIOLENT) discontent with the PRC government.
You're an apologist for PRC atrocities. Everything it does badly you sluff aside with, "It's a different culture," or, "They're doing it at their own pace."
You are untroubled by that 'pace' because you're not stepping to it. It's not you holding onto the oar and rowing while some slave driver beats the drum, so it's OK. After all, it's a different culture.
I guess as long as they're not your eggs being broken, the saying, "You gotta break some eggs to make an omlette," is reasonable.
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Wikipedia is easy to access by everyone, compared to say a dusty and unkown book from a local village library.
Hey! My local village librarians regularly dust all their books.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
China is an interesting paradox, moving towards democracy and capitalism while still claiming that they are still communist, creating a "market economy with socialist characteristics."
Does that work? Seems almost oxymoronic.
Posts: 19 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Its not oxymoronic, socialist characteristics focuses on the ability to change based on the 5 year plans, the ability to maintain a massive social welfare program, and attempts to equalize the wealth within the confines of a market driven economy.
The State still has alot of authority over how the industries are run, making sure that the corporations don't become the next power holders and making sure that the Government has the power over the corporate entity. Allowing for socialism that aids the people in comparrison to say corporations dominating the American way of life and doing its best to make a cheap buck.
IP: Logged |
posted
I like voting for more than one set of choices, BB. Also a fan of being religious and speaking out in a free press against the government if I so choose. But let's ignore that and point out how corporations 'dominate' the American way of life.
posted
If you keep saying "Hail China!" I will goto Papa Janitor, its insulting and belittleing to my arguements, how can I argue if the opposition doesn't respect me enough to listen?
IP: Logged |
quote:You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this BB to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law.
The only place this might violate the TOS is under "harassing", but that's painting with a pretty broad brush. I know you probably find it insulting, but it's on about the same level as, "I'm not touching you!".
I'm not sure tattling is the solution. Of course, in my experience, the best response to immaturity like this is to simply ignore it.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Ah, but if a a man starts to touch/stroke a girl even if not immediatly harassing, if the the girl asks him to stop and he refuses then it's harrassment.
I've asked him to stop, and he didn't know I'm REALLY asking him to stop, if he doesn't then the purpose of him continueing to do it is to harass.
IP: Logged |
posted
Fine, BB. I'll stop saying, "Hail China!" I was wondering how long it would take for you to reach this point. Here's something to think about, though: were I saying something so scornful and mocking of the PRC government within the PRC, there's a good chance you wouldn't have to tattle to the moderator. The moderator would already be in my computer.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and incidentally, if you really feel that your only response to my supposed rules violation is to make your case to the moderator, by all means, do so.
Doesn't change the fact, though, that your arguments are insulting and belittling to you, and that they don't merit respect. They basically amount to, "It's a different culture!" or "They're getting better!"
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, Avatar, BB's approach is subdued compared to the methods of the PRC government. And he knows it, too, but he doesn't care. He doesn't live there. The very rights he lives under and cherishes so much and would shriek if they were lost, are things only important for Chinese people to have later, not now.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Depends, what are you willing to sacrifice for greatness? Canada is a great nation to be in yes, but then again history and geography has sheltered us from the worst fate could throw at us.
And fate has really thrown alot at China and the Chinese people and are willing to sacrifice these personal freedoms that quite frankly they have never trully had (to a certain extent anyways) so that they can reach their goals faster.
But then again, they do have freedom of speach to a certain extent, may not be good enough for you but for people who know that life for their ancestors was ALOT and undeniably harder for them then it is now for themselves then they just work harder and are willing to sacrifice so that they're children can have a better life.
IP: Logged |
posted
That's sad that your defense of China is "it's better than it used to be." It used to be awful, and now it's merely miserable. In a few hundred years they'll be up to passable, then livable, and maybe one day, good.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In other words, you're not willing yourself to sacrifice your rights for national greatness.
But some other poor slob, it's OK with you if someone sacrifices his rights for another nation's greatness. Civil rights violations, human torture, sharply limited freedom of speech, press, religion, and voting rights, are all OK with you...as long as you're not the one losing those things. As long as it's across an ocean and happening to nearly a billion people who aren't you, it's OK.
In fact, it's commendable. Because China roxxors.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Still, "Hail China!" is childish and needlessly provocative. Might as well poke him with a stick.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, it started out that way-even though it IS a reasonable distillment of all of his arguments. Eventually I wanted to make a point, that if I were in China, BB wouldn't have to have worried about it, because the government would've done it for him.
That point was made, so now I'll go back to poking.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
