| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"maff" |
| Date: |
27 Feb 2005 07:36:02 AM |
| Object: |
SoftPower, Hard Choices |
SoftPower, Hard Choices
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7037845/site/newsweek/
China is emerging as a major economic power, but will that translate
into a military threat? Taiwan will be the test.
By Melinda Liu and John Barry
Newsweek
March 7 issue - Ask a party bureaucrat in Beijing about China's foreign
ambitions these days, and the reply may sound like a beauty
contestant's doe-eyed promise to work for world harmony. "Peaceful
resolution of global problems is both our aim and our style," asserts
one official involved in international affairs. China has no interest
in becoming a military superpower, he insists. "A power, yes, but not a
superpower," he says. "We don't want to be enemies with anyone."
Taiwan
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/84c9e453e27664d6
China
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/d3294ecc38a6a57d
Is the wakening giant a monster?
http://tinyurl.com/iws6
A Blueprint for the Future
http://snipurl.com/a684
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Any Native Americans personally directly harmed by US government? |
11 Mar 2005 01:13:48 PM |
|
|
Secret Squirrel wrote:
But that would make a lot of folks as healthy as the
well-healed (sic). What would be the point of being rich,
then? This sort of thing could undermine the American way.
You *do* realize that a key Repulblican strategist (I forget
his name) said back in 1993 that Clinton's proposed health
care plan (which was just a rework of what *Nixon* had once
proposed, not any Canadian style program, mind you) had to
be fought by Republicans at all costs, for if the American
people ever got comprehensive national health care insurance,
they'd like it so much that there'd be no turning back. It
would become just like <gasp> Social Security.
How's that for logic? "We must oppose this measure because
everyone will like it if it passes". Similarly, that's the
rationale for the current attack on Social Security--it's
not in any great danger of going broke, the projections that
it is are all based on extremely conservative estimates of
annual economic growth (2%) over the next 75 years, whereas
the historical average as been 3 %, and with historical
growth the projections show no problems. The reason why the
Republicans are trying to attack Social Security is that
they believe it to be the linchpin of the hated welfare
state, i.e. in the words of a Cato Institute spokesman
destroy Social Security and dismantling the rest is easy.
Ah yes, the "welfare state". Americans need to work for
their living, but only tax income which is earned (e.g., no
inheritance tax). Actually, now that I can think about it,
it is possible to earn your inheritance, as the Menendez
brothers demonstrated.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Secret Squirrel" |
|
| Title: Re: Any Native Americans personally directly harmed by US government? |
14 Mar 2005 01:39:33 PM |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
man_in_black529@yahoo.com wrote in
news:1110568428.438438.11610@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Secret Squirrel wrote:
How's that for logic? "We must oppose this measure because
everyone will like it if it passes". Similarly, that's the
rationale for the current attack on Social Security--it's
not in any great danger of going broke, the projections that
it is are all based on extremely conservative estimates of
annual economic growth (2%) over the next 75 years, whereas
the historical average as been 3 %, and with historical
growth the projections show no problems. The reason why the
Republicans are trying to attack Social Security is that
they believe it to be the linchpin of the hated welfare
state, i.e. in the words of a Cato Institute spokesman
destroy Social Security and dismantling the rest is easy.
Ah yes, the "welfare state". Americans need to work for
their living, but only tax income which is earned (e.g., no
inheritance tax). Actually, now that I can think about it,
it is possible to earn your inheritance, as the Menendez
brothers demonstrated.
Did you catch Greenspan's advocacy of a national sales tax?
I went livid when I read it.
Gawd, the Republicans like to pose as being against taxation,
but as you said, it's only taxes on the *rich* (i.e, inheritance
and our not-very-progressive income tax) that they're against.
The working poor can pay every last damned dime in taxes and
that's fine by them.
People think that Reagan cut taxes, when in fact he and Bush I
both *raised* taxes--payroll taxes, on the working poor, in
three of the largest tax increases in US history. It's only
taxes on the *wealthy* that Reagan lowered. Now we're going to
see this in Bush II--proposals to continue cutting the top
income tax rates while making up the loss in revenues by the
addition of new taxes on the poor. And the so-called "liberal
media" doesn't report this for what it is.
Secret Squirrel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQEVAwUBQjTUAT/rA6+b3AyhAQEJEwf/R/607dSpYU53VbH2xf1sb8mcVAQEO9do
JzzesSt8SWOpq/vCem9bOzOHmEDdeFOKw3/HiTmsIbDO8aCxHIQDP//eY9f3pNjn
TmSyU/QzLTUZ7zdXQA+Yqeuog27vKIr8sL25PLQPQtlar9ta15AswfEBTN/RhTEE
jhr92O5I329fnS49iA+xbUKso7UrqOymylDk5ru2BEGEwfvO1qRRvpXPBqn3rF37
WQJ9YJ4XbylcpeiHMDT4qhxcGZEzr5YlQDk2+NRuuaonn6POQPaKTkASjyvhYyca
RqDjckr1JfqPkW9prOnMw78Yo+M4nCSIBO/ngmnmR4QAwDdeQSzPAQ==
=IhIq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Any Native Americans personally directly harmed by US government? |
14 Mar 2005 06:05:43 PM |
|
|
Secret Squirrel wrote:
Did you catch Greenspan's advocacy of a national sales tax?
I went livid when I read it.
Ditto. I'td have to be in the range of 35% just to keep the
dollar stronger than the yen.
Gawd, the Republicans like to pose as being against taxation,
but as you said, it's only taxes on the *rich* (i.e, inheritance
and our not-very-progressive income tax) that they're against.
The working poor can pay every last damned dime in taxes and
that's fine by them.
It's the same people who imagine the rich revolting against
the poor. I'm thinking that if Steve Forbes led a
revolution against the working class, I'd take the rest of
the day off.
People think that Reagan cut taxes, when in fact he and Bush I
both *raised* taxes--payroll taxes, on the working poor, in
three of the largest tax increases in US history. It's only
taxes on the *wealthy* that Reagan lowered. Now we're going to
see this in Bush II--proposals to continue cutting the top
income tax rates while making up the loss in revenues by the
addition of new taxes on the poor. And the so-called "liberal
media" doesn't report this for what it is.
For the same reason they didn't report about Sgrena, but had
no problem reporting nonsense like Filegate.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Secret Squirrel" |
|
| Title: Re: Any Native Americans personally directly harmed by US government? |
16 Mar 2005 03:02:53 PM |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
man_in_black529@yahoo.com wrote in
news:1110845143.504576.32360@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
Secret Squirrel wrote:
Gawd, the Republicans like to pose as being against
taxation, but as you said, it's only taxes on the *rich*
(i.e, inheritance and our not-very-progressive income tax)
that they're against. The working poor can pay every last
damned dime in taxes and that's fine by them.
It's the same people who imagine the rich revolting against
the poor.
That's revealing, as this very thing made me think of
Greenspan's close association with Ayn Rand. I can't believe
that he stuck his nose into advocating new taxes, and
specifically an extremely regressive one at that.
I'm thinking that if Steve Forbes led a
revolution against the working class, I'd take the rest of
the day off.
Me too. "You say that Steve Forbes is on strike against
us? Well, don't that beat all. Say, did the garbage man
run today?"
Secret Squirrel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQEVAwUBQjd3AT/rA6+b3AyhAQGhQgf/TbNNjCWQliyCMaD/2MX0cdiF635bMKxM
ZojTwoFJWxCnsmdGI8JR2jo8H5dg49RF68fG1ZAyAG0AMZqv2qDs/OKBojClOWjc
oN2NXT8F48d3EIxpAVYwweT4T8m0yMeWkxXVF4yimwDvIMk+Dy08MZodOkehrm4E
Ajgzh7Zb7ZWswmL9SgmIuP78aq2IGbtGwFYAPQuqkS3XVOgMpmJgQDQ3s3xgKiOB
8ikhFETTKLTgzgCt4Ha4at/ivILiTAVCwyKh6taZS+keERgcnL2x8M6ukc8PiNsZ
7fQd50nUxmDw5r3qHUg4txHD1/ezTVRB+MHIazp/faFIXunWrFdfEQ==
=i6db
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Any Native Americans personally directly harmed by US government? |
16 Mar 2005 07:10:15 PM |
|
|
Secret Squirrel wrote:
Gawd, the Republicans like to pose as being against
taxation, but as you said, it's only taxes on the *rich*
(i.e, inheritance and our not-very-progressive income tax)
that they're against. The working poor can pay every last
damned dime in taxes and that's fine by them.
It's the same people who imagine the rich revolting against
the poor.
That's revealing, as this very thing made me think of
Greenspan's close association with Ayn Rand. I can't believe
that he stuck his nose into advocating new taxes, and
specifically an extremely regressive one at that.
Well, Forbes had that whole "flat tax". Here's an idea:
Everyone pays the same taxes, and gets the same amount from
the government.
It kinda reminds me of the old stereotype about Indians
being lazy. We're not really lazy; we simply do things in
the most parsimonious manner without sacrificing quality.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Any Native Americans personally directly harmed by US government? |
07 Mar 2005 12:34:17 PM |
|
|
And how about the money being withheld from Indian landowners by the
Department of the Interior. And how Gale Norton withheld checks to get
even with those pesky landowners for actually wanting THEIR money!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Any Native Americans personally directly harmed by US government? |
08 Mar 2005 01:15:21 AM |
|
|
Why, do they have something against Native Americans?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: Tibet for Tibetans |
06 Mar 2005 06:43:53 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
charles_liu@my-deja.com wrote in
news:1110111047.795554.53790@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Jim Walsh wrote:
On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 10:01:29 -0800, charles_liu thought carefully
and
wrote:
So China can do what we did, then wait 100 years, then they can
have Tibet soctt free, right?
If you are asking, "Do you believer that after the passage of
"sufficient
time", it is more destructive to reverse crimes than to leave them
uncompensated?" The answer is "Yes".
Great, China have right to hang on to Tibet then. It's already 50
years, and already more destructive to reverse China's crime than
to
leave them uncompensated. Problem solved huh, just like our own
Native
American problem.
If Americans like you can rationtionalize our own crime like this,
why
can't the Chinese? I would say wrong is wrong no matter who's doing
it
while recognize demanding China to reliniquish her established
sovereignty is equally destructive as demanding US to reliniquish
our
established sovereignty. I guess both case should be left
uncompensated according to your reason.
Fine. Let any Native American who was personally directly harmed by
US
actions apply for compensation.
Are you going to kill them first, Confederate Fred?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You know you're over the target when you start receiving flak."
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Tibet for Tibetans |
06 Mar 2005 06:56:57 AM |
|
|
If Americans like you can rationtionalize our own crime like this,
why
can't the Chinese? I would say wrong is wrong no matter who's doing
it
while recognize demanding China to reliniquish her established
sovereignty is equally destructive as demanding US to reliniquish
our
established sovereignty. I guess both case should be left
uncompensated according to your reason.
Fine. Let any Native American who was personally directly harmed by
US
actions apply for compensation.
Are you going to kill them first, Confederate Fred?
I think they don't use the term "kill". It's usually something like
"threat neutralized" or "how the west was won"...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Tibet for Tibetans |
06 Mar 2005 07:39:39 AM |
|
|
"123@abc.com" <123@abc.com> wrote in
news:fevl215lslh0gk5b6676ng7ukkck0ffaer@4ax.com:
If Americans like you can rationtionalize our own crime like this,
why
can't the Chinese? I would say wrong is wrong no matter who's
doing
it
while recognize demanding China to reliniquish her established
sovereignty is equally destructive as demanding US to reliniquish
our
established sovereignty. I guess both case should be left
uncompensated according to your reason.
Fine. Let any Native American who was personally directly harmed by
US actions apply for compensation.
Are you going to kill them first, Confederate Fred?
I think they're all already dead, long since.
I think they don't use the term "kill". It's usually something like
"threat neutralized" or "how the west was won"...
I think you didn't bother to think about my answer at all, or you'd
realize how stupid you sound.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You know you're over the target when you start receiving flak."
.
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: Tibet for Tibetans |
06 Mar 2005 04:05:06 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
"123@abc.com" <123@abc.com> wrote in
news:fevl215lslh0gk5b6676ng7ukkck0ffaer@4ax.com:
If Americans like you can rationtionalize our own crime like
this,
why
can't the Chinese? I would say wrong is wrong no matter who's
doing
it
while recognize demanding China to reliniquish her established
sovereignty is equally destructive as demanding US to
reliniquish
our
established sovereignty. I guess both case should be left
uncompensated according to your reason.
Fine. Let any Native American who was personally directly harmed
by
US actions apply for compensation.
Are you going to kill them first, Confederate Fred?
I think they're all already dead, long since.
You're still here.
I think they don't use the term "kill". It's usually something
like
"threat neutralized" or "how the west was won"...
I think you didn't bother to think about my answer at all, or you'd
realize how stupid you sound.
Are you looking for a new Civil War perchance?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You know you're over the target when you start receiving flak."
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: Tibet for Tibetans |
06 Mar 2005 07:09:13 AM |
|
|
wrote:
If Americans like you can rationtionalize our own crime like
this,
why
can't the Chinese? I would say wrong is wrong no matter who's
doing
it
while recognize demanding China to reliniquish her established
sovereignty is equally destructive as demanding US to
reliniquish
our
established sovereignty. I guess both case should be left
uncompensated according to your reason.
Fine. Let any Native American who was personally directly harmed
by
US
actions apply for compensation.
Are you going to kill them first, Confederate Fred?
I think they don't use the term "kill". It's usually something like
"threat neutralized" or "how the west was won"...
OK. We can certainly neutralize Confederate Fred.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Walsh" |
|
| Title: Re: Tibet for Tibetans |
06 Mar 2005 11:21:25 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 12:28:48 +0000, Fred Stone thought carefully and
wrote:
Fine. Let any Native American who was personally directly harmed by US
actions apply for compensation.
Actually this happens very often. The idea that (although the American
government committed crimes against the Native Americans in the past) the
American government is currently fair to the Native Americans, is one of
the lies many Americans need to hear.
It is false. The Bureau of Indian Affairs continues to cheat the Native
Americans every day.
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Tibet for Tibetans |
07 Mar 2005 08:30:50 AM |
|
|
Jim Walsh <jimwalsh@ms74.hinet.net> wrote in
news:pan.2005.03.07.05.21.25.103984@ms74.hinet.net:
On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 12:28:48 +0000, Fred Stone thought carefully and
wrote:
Fine. Let any Native American who was personally directly harmed by
US actions apply for compensation.
Actually this happens very often. The idea that (although the American
government committed crimes against the Native Americans in the past)
the American government is currently fair to the Native Americans, is
one of the lies many Americans need to hear.
It is false. The Bureau of Indian Affairs continues to cheat the
Native Americans every day.
Examples?
And they have compensation, in states like Florida or California, where
the Natives have considerable political clout with their casino money.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You know you're over the target when you start receiving flak."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Walsh" |
|
| Title: Re: Tibet for Tibetans |
07 Mar 2005 08:42:03 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 14:30:50 +0000, Fred Stone thought carefully and
wrote:
Jim Walsh <jimwalsh@ms74.hinet.net> wrote in
news:pan.2005.03.07.05.21.25.103984@ms74.hinet.net:
It is false. The Bureau of Indian Affairs continues to cheat the Native
Americans every day.
Examples?
Are you aware of the "trust" case?
http://www.indiantrust.com/
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Tibet for Tibetans |
07 Mar 2005 09:08:19 AM |
|
|
Jim Walsh <jimwalsh@ms74.hinet.net> wrote in
news:pan.2005.03.07.14.42.03.89164@ms74.hinet.net:
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 14:30:50 +0000, Fred Stone thought carefully and
wrote:
Jim Walsh <jimwalsh@ms74.hinet.net> wrote in
news:pan.2005.03.07.05.21.25.103984@ms74.hinet.net:
It is false. The Bureau of Indian Affairs continues to cheat the
Native Americans every day.
Examples?
Are you aware of the "trust" case?
http://www.indiantrust.com/
It would appear that they have indeed applied for legal compensation.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You know you're over the target when you start receiving flak."
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Tibet for Tibetans |
07 Mar 2005 11:42:47 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
Jim Walsh <jimwalsh@ms74.hinet.net> wrote in
news:pan.2005.03.07.14.42.03.89164@ms74.hinet.net:
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 14:30:50 +0000, Fred Stone thought carefully
and
wrote:
Jim Walsh <jimwalsh@ms74.hinet.net> wrote in
news:pan.2005.03.07.05.21.25.103984@ms74.hinet.net:
It is false. The Bureau of Indian Affairs continues to cheat the
Native Americans every day.
Examples?
Are you aware of the "trust" case?
http://www.indiantrust.com/
It would appear that they have indeed applied for legal compensation.
Caugh, caugh, choke, choke, gasp, gasp... Hey Fred, are you still up
for that field trip to soc.culture.native?
Such self-righteousness, that's what I want to point out to y'all.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Walsh" |
|
| Title: Re: Tibet for Tibetans |
08 Mar 2005 02:59:02 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 15:08:19 +0000, Fred Stone thought carefully and
wrote:
Jim Walsh <jimwalsh@ms74.hinet.net> wrote in
news:pan.2005.03.07.14.42.03.89164@ms74.hinet.net:
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 14:30:50 +0000, Fred Stone thought carefully and
wrote:
Jim Walsh <jimwalsh@ms74.hinet.net> wrote in
news:pan.2005.03.07.05.21.25.103984@ms74.hinet.net:
It is false. The Bureau of Indian Affairs continues to cheat the
Native Americans every day.
Examples?
Are you aware of the "trust" case?
http://www.indiantrust.com/
It would appear that they have indeed applied for legal compensation.
Reading the details of the mishandling of trust money owed to Native
Americans will make you sick to your stomach, and the more you read the
sicker you will be.
And we are not discussing ancient history. The abuse is on-going even as
we speak.
--
Love, Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Tibet for Tibetans |
08 Mar 2005 08:32:06 AM |
|
|
Jim Walsh <jimwalsh@ms74.hinet.net> wrote in
news:pan.2005.03.08.08.59.02.923800@ms74.hinet.net:
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 15:08:19 +0000, Fred Stone thought carefully and
wrote:
Jim Walsh <jimwalsh@ms74.hinet.net> wrote in
news:pan.2005.03.07.14.42.03.89164@ms74.hinet.net:
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 14:30:50 +0000, Fred Stone thought carefully and
wrote:
Jim Walsh <jimwalsh@ms74.hinet.net> wrote in
news:pan.2005.03.07.05.21.25.103984@ms74.hinet.net:
It is false. The Bureau of Indian Affairs continues to cheat the
Native Americans every day.
Examples?
Are you aware of the "trust" case?
http://www.indiantrust.com/
It would appear that they have indeed applied for legal compensation.
Reading the details of the mishandling of trust money owed to Native
Americans will make you sick to your stomach, and the more you read
the sicker you will be.
I wish them well in their attempts to obtain justice from the BIA. Good
luck fighting the bureaucracy.
And we are not discussing ancient history. The abuse is on-going even
as we speak.
Unfortunately, a government agency has a lot of leeway to ignore or
stonewall any response to the judge's ruling.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You know you're over the target when you start receiving flak."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Walsh" |
|
| Title: Re: Tibet for Tibetans |
06 Mar 2005 11:19:07 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 04:10:47 -0800, charles_liu thought carefully and
wrote:
....If Americans like you can rationtionalize our own crime like this,
why can't the Chinese?....
You are an example of a Chinese rationalizing the PRC's crimes.
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Tibet for Tibetans |
07 Mar 2005 12:12:36 AM |
|
|
Jim Walsh wrote:
On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 04:10:47 -0800, charles_liu thought carefully and
wrote:
....If Americans like you can rationtionalize our own crime like
this,
why can't the Chinese?....
You are an example of a Chinese rationalizing the PRC's crimes.
I am an American. I ain't never been a PRC citizen a day in my life. I
guess you knew that already. I'm just pointing out how self-serving
your so called rule is.
Look, it's your rule about "destruction harm greater than reversing the
crime" BS. Hey, if you think it applies to us, why can't some Chinese
say the same thing to justify their subjugation? Subjugation is
subjugation. Don't try to rationalize ours so you can keep up with your
self-righteousness.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Walsh" |
|
| Title: Re: Tibet for Tibetans |
07 Mar 2005 05:55:08 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 22:12:36 -0800, charles_liu thought carefully and
wrote:
Jim Walsh wrote:
You are an example of a Chinese rationalizing the PRC's crimes.
I am an American. I ain't never been a PRC citizen a day in my life. I
guess you knew that already. I'm just pointing out how self-serving your
so called rule is.
You are not Chinese by nationality. You are Chinese by culture, and
self-identification.
Look, it's your rule about "destruction harm greater than reversing the
crime" BS.....
I apply the same rules in every case. Your implication that I don't is
dishonest.
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Tibet for Tibetans |
08 Mar 2005 01:55:18 AM |
|
|
Jim Walsh wrote:
On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 22:12:36 -0800, charles_liu thought carefully and
wrote:
Jim Walsh wrote:
You are an example of a Chinese rationalizing the PRC's crimes.
I am an American. I ain't never been a PRC citizen a day in my
life. I
guess you knew that already. I'm just pointing out how self-serving
your
so called rule is.
You are not Chinese by nationality. You are Chinese by culture, and
self-identification.
Wrong. I am Taiwanese.
Look, it's your rule about "destruction harm greater than reversing
the
crime" BS.....
I apply the same rules in every case. Your implication that I don't
is
dishonest.
Then why is it you'd let ourselves off the hook so easily?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Walsh" |
|
| Title: Re: Tibet for Tibetans |
08 Mar 2005 03:00:27 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 23:55:18 -0800, charles_liu thought carefully and
wrote:
Jim Walsh wrote:
On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 22:12:36 -0800, charles_liu thought carefully and
wrote:
I am an American. I ain't never been a PRC citizen...
You are not Chinese by nationality. You are Chinese by culture, and
self-identification.
Wrong. I am Taiwanese.
Why then do you support the argument of Chinese that they are the
legitimate owners of Taiwan?
--
Love, Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: Tibet for Tibetans |
08 Mar 2005 03:31:02 AM |
|
|
Jim Walsh wrote:
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 23:55:18 -0800, charles_liu thought carefully and
wrote:
Jim Walsh wrote:
On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 22:12:36 -0800, charles_liu thought carefully
and
wrote:
I am an American. I ain't never been a PRC citizen...
You are not Chinese by nationality. You are Chinese by culture,
and
self-identification.
Wrong. I am Taiwanese.
Why then do you support the argument of Chinese that they are the
legitimate owners of Taiwan?
Why don't you ask James Soong?
--
Love, Jim
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Komin" |
|
| Title: Re: Tibet for Tibetans |
07 Mar 2005 07:22:28 PM |
|
|
You are Chinese by self identification , yes ,
but in this New Century ,
you are Chinese by the passport you hold.
Hong Kong Chinese passports, or Continental Chinese passports.
or Taiwanese passports ,
all these 3 are all Chinese passports
in international legal identification for the Chinese people .
Hong Kong Chinese passport is the best, you can go to many places
without the requirement for a visa .
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: Tibet for Tibetans |
01 Mar 2005 05:18:19 AM |
|
|
Jim Walsh wrote:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 02:02:13 -0800, maff thought carefully and wrote:
... Even KMT considered Tibet part of China.
Irrelevant. Japan considered Taiwan part of Japan. The decision as to
what
political entity controls Tibet, Taiwan, France, Texas, and so on is
only
properly made by the people of Tibet, Taiwan, France, Texas, and so
on.
But Tibet was never an independent country. It was never belo0nged to
the League of Nations or United Nations. Taiwan was never part of
Japan. It always belonged to China.
Because it was inconsistent with the wishes of the Tibetan people.
You can say that of half of the US.
No. Not at all. You don't really understand democracy, do you? The
election of Bush is not a reason for Californians to consider
secession
any more than the election of Clinton was a reason for Texans to do
so.
A state of Civil War already exists.
If every single human (other than Tibetans) in the world supported
Tibet
being part of China, but the substantial majority of Tibetans opposed
it,
then they should be free of Chinese rule.
Why? Just because a Zen fascist says so?
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
=----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Walsh" |
|
| Title: Re: Tibet for Tibetans |
01 Mar 2005 07:53:40 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 03:18:19 -0800, maff thought carefully and wrote:
... Taiwan was never part of Japan. It always belonged to China.
Falling down laughing. There is no sentence too stupid for you.
--
Love, Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: Tibet for Tibetans |
01 Mar 2005 02:27:15 PM |
|
|
Jim Walsh wrote:
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 03:18:19 -0800, maff thought carefully and wrote:
... Taiwan was never part of Japan. It always belonged to China.
Falling down laughing. There is no sentence too stupid for you.
All fascists think that everyone is stupid except them. That's why
you'll be defeated. You certainly can laugh but it won't change the
outcome.
--
Love, Jim
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Yu" |
|
| Title: Re: Tibet for Tibetans |
01 Mar 2005 02:35:35 AM |
|
|
Jim Walsh wrote:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 02:02:13 -0800, maff thought carefully and wrote:
No. Not at all. You don't really understand democracy, do you? The
election of Bush is not a reason for Californians to consider
secession
any more than the election of Clinton was a reason for Texans to do
so.
If every single human (other than Tibetans) in the world supported
Tibet
being part of China, but the substantial majority of Tibetans opposed
it,
then they should be free of Chinese rule.
The sort of democracy Jim talk about doesn't exist.
In USA for example, they kill off the natives first. When there were
very few left. They were allowed to vote.
USA invented ethnic cleansing democracy which is latter applied in
Bosnia.
American are good at telling others how to behave when they don't live
by the same standard. Jim's logic is they Chinese are far better people
than Americans (thanks for the confidence), therefore must do this, do
that and live saints.
BTW, the majority of Tibetans support being part of China.
That's why the CIA secret war in Tibet failed.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
