Describe yourself

[TimmyJames1976]

Originally posted by chelseafc05@Oct 25 2005, 08:36 PM
going forward as a part of china and avoiding invasion.

[snapback]83020[/snapback]

just like hong kong did?

[chelseafc05]

i havnt seen ant negative effect on hong kong

[gspina]

Originally posted by chelseafc05@Oct 25 2005, 07:36 PM
going forward as a part of china and avoiding invasion.

[snapback]83020[/snapback]

A quick note on this, I have to disagree. During the early times of many countries, many outsiders thought it was better to just go foward with the old regime in order to maintain peace, this doesnt always work well for those involved.

I have never been to China, nor have I been Taiwan, So I cannot say much to the situation or the sentiments of the people on either side. But here is what I feel, what is best for Taiwan, me not telling Taiwan what is best for Taiwan.


Back to the main topic. I am for most things. I am agains gun control, I am against most social spending, I can tolerate helping people who have fallen on hard times, I cannot help people who have no desire to help themselves. Not a fan of Affirmitive Action (I dont feel it helps the people in need) Instead, I am for looking at a broader range of factors instead of just race. I am also against terms like minorities as I feel many of these policies make the problem worse.

I believe in equal rights, true equal rights, For example Freedom of speech, should be free to everyone, no matter how offensive, if you are offended by something I apologize, but get over it.

I am for parents being responsible for raising their children. Back to freedom of speech, if you dont like whats on the TV or whats in a Video game because you find it offensive, turn it off.

Topics such as marriage (gay or straight), abortion, and religious issues have no place in polotics. There are better things to waste taxpayer dollars on than should we add an amendment banning gay marriages, and whether or not to change the license to read civil union. Again equal rights for everyone, means your sexual orientation should not even be an issue.

I am for big spending on education, research, the sciences and the arts. I am against war (in most cases), I against the death penalty (not for moral or humane reasons, I just think there are better ways to handle these crimes). I am for accountability.

Not a fan of nukes, the idea of keeping peace under threat of mutually assured destruction is a little offsetting. In most cases Mexican standoffs (Forgive the term) do not end well.

On that note Ill cue the music

[gspina]

One thing I did forget to add on the Taiwan topic, I am always for fighting for what you believe in.

and I never feel that this should be policy

[chelseafc05]

Originally posted by gspina@Oct 26 2005, 05:18 PM
One thing I did forget to add on the Taiwan topic,* I am always for fighting for what you believe in.*

and I never feel that this* * should be policy

[snapback]83054[/snapback]

hence china has the right to protect its soverienty

[Joker]

I'll be a bit more direct to this now, since some things have broken the surface...

Bush Admin: I originally supported the guy a helluva lot more than now, but as time has gone on, he seems very Nixon to me, and I don't care for Nixon. Of course, I am a Hunter Thompson fan, so ya never know if its skewed.

I won't write the following to support or refute him, but I will offer some facts. Read it and make up your mind.

Foreign Policy: We went 8 years without effective, wait, change that, REAL foreign policy. We have had to deal with much of that aftermath. Not that I'm going to use the straw man argument that Clinton is responsible for 9/11 because he didn't take Bin Laden into custody when Sudan offered him on a silver platter, but because we didn't effectively take any stand whatsoever. When the Lewinsky thing hit, Clinton lobbed a few at Afghanistan and attempted to make a diversion. Furthermore, he had ample opportunities to nail Hussein and the corrupt UN programs that shielded him, but did nothing. These things are overshadowed by the seeming ineptitude of the current administration.

Domestic Policy: One thing Clinton did do was improve this country's economy, vis a vi the Republican tax cuts of 1994, and instead of screwing with it, allowed it to run. Unfortunately, the lack of checks and balances by a week SEC caused a TON of oversight, made evident especially when the whole Enron debacle occurred. I lost $10,000 overnight in my 401K.

Social Freedoms: The rights to freedom of speech, press, religion, and assembly are guaranteed by the right to bear arms. Guess where I stand there.

Furthermore, the draconian, yet lopsided enforcement of drug policy in this country alarms me. Marijuana distribution is classified in the same light as crystal meth or cocaine. Legalization is a long way off, but at least relaxing the laws a bit in terms of possesion is a step in the right direction. We already regulate the hell out of tobacco and alcohol. Why not weed? Hell, you can't die from pot withdrawal, but you most definitely can from alcohol withdrawal.

Fiscal Policy: Many are up in arms regarding the rampant spending that occurred in the 2nd Bush admin. But there are clear-cut reasons:

1. Massive, and immediate creation of an ENTIRELY NEW federal administration. Immediate government takeover of the ENTIRE airline security. These things cost money. The Commerce Dept has been around for years, as well as every other fed. administration. But the startup of a new one costs billions.

2. War: We gotta have bullets in the guns and men on the ground. Any time there is a war, its going to cost money. Whether you like or agree with the war or not, we can't send a Marine squad into Falujah with half-empty magazines and no uniforms. They are there, we need to keep them properly equipped. How much, exactly, do you think a single SMART Bomb costs, anyway?

3. Massive humanitarian efforts, in this country and abroad. We sent how many billions to Indonesia, Louisiana, Texas, India, Africa, etc etc etc. The US leads the charge financially every time there is a disaster. Fact is, that this costs money.

Like I said, I'm not defending the current admin, but I offer some facts and let you decide. I tend to look at things VERY pragmatically, so I remain in my Civil Libertarian mindset... :D

[The Monsignor]

I'm somewhere slightly to the right of center.

Pro gun rights, pro choice (though I personally feel that the choice is a mistake - that's only my opinion, and I'll be damned if I feel it has to be someone elses), pro legal pot - though I'm clean. Fiscally conservatifve, and I believe the government needs to be out of the charity business! Pro business and pro environment (there's gotta be a balance here). Anti-religious extremism (of any sort) and definitely against government legislating my morality (don't tell me who or how many I can marry, date, or hang out with - don't tell my kid that they can't pray in a public school, to whoever the hell they want to, and a 'Moment of silence' or 'public prayer' doesn't suddenly convert someone, and doesn't mean the state is sponsoring a religion)

And, as most here have heard, ad nauseam, I'm pro military.

[worldwidemike]

I guess you wouldn't see much negative effect of Chinese takeover on Hong Kong unless you're one of those thrown in prison for having the wrong political or even religious views.

However, to ask the Taiwanese to submit to the "communist" (ha!..read "authoritarian"...China hasn't been interested in Marxism for a loooong time) Chinese regime, is simply asking for lots of folks to be beaten, shot or thrown in prison. They're simply not going to give up the right to vote for the leaders they choose, nor are they going to simply shut up and stop expressing themselves because their veiws are inconvenient to a handful of octagenarians who don't see the handwriting on the wall. By that, I mean China is headed for a fall. As their people get wealthier and as their contact with the outside world grows, and they see what they don't have politically and in the way of personal freedom, the day approaches when they will no longer submit.

I only hope the fall comes as peacefully as it did in the USSR and Eastern Europe.

Oh, and the Chinese are NOT going to invade. When you put armies aboard ships, they get REAL vulnerable. Hell, the Taiwanese could probably sink every ship the Chinese could send at them -- at least the first few "waves" worth -- without our help. Any that got through would be annihilated on the beach.

worldwidemike

[TimmyJames1976]

not to mention that china has a very out dated military and military equipment, and guess who supplies the taiwanese with arms....the goo dol' u s of a....also, the little island that could happens to house the wealthiest political party in the world...the kmt has more money then even the us republican party....which means lots of foreign help if needed...then can buy allies....and yeah..china has to make bold claims about not wanting taiwan to declare independence because it is a "face" culture over here....if they did not they would be deemed weak....i dont see the status quo changing any time soon...and hell, chinas biggest inverstor is taiwan, so why would they want to invade and destroy the economy of the one country who sends mega bucks to them....but now back to the main topic...sorry for the thread highjack ya'll

[Rozza]

Originally posted by gspina@Oct 26 2005, 07:16 AM
I am also against terms like minorities as I feel many of these policies make the problem worse.

[snapback]83053[/snapback]

would it be better if we termed it 'less people' and 'a few more people'? surely terms such as race and class, then there would be no inequality, every one will be equal, just a case of 'most people' being less equal than the 'fewest people' who are the most equal

[chelseafc05]

Originally posted by worldwidemike@Oct 26 2005, 08:26 PM
I guess you wouldn't see much negative effect of Chinese takeover on Hong Kong unless you're one of those thrown in prison for having the wrong political or even religious views.*

However, to ask the Taiwanese to submit to the "communist" (ha!..read "authoritarian"...China hasn't been interested in Marxism for a loooong time) Chinese regime, is simply asking for lots of folks to be beaten, shot or thrown in prison.* They're simply not going to give up the right to vote for the leaders they choose, nor are they going to simply shut up and stop expressing themselves because their veiws are inconvenient to a handful of octagenarians who don't see the handwriting on the wall.* By that, I mean China is headed for a fall.* As their people get wealthier and as their contact with the outside world grows, and they see what they don't have politically and in the way of personal freedom, the day approaches when they will no longer submit.

I only hope the fall comes as peacefully as it did in the USSR and Eastern Europe.

Oh, and the Chinese are NOT going to invade.* When you put armies aboard ships, they get REAL vulnerable.* Hell, the Taiwanese could probably sink every ship the Chinese could send at them -- at least the first few "waves" worth -- without our help.* Any that got through would be annihilated on the beach.

worldwidemike

[snapback]83078[/snapback]

It dosnt matter what type of government is in power whether there opressive and brutal or not at the end of the day taiwan is a part of china and has been for hundreds of years, they have also turned a blind eye to alot of things in hong kong and macau for economic reasons.. and they have hardly had massive changes since joining china... apart from the so called "opression" i can hardly see china heading for collapse they have the fastest growing economy in the world and millions of people have been pulled out of poverty, there are alot more liberal then what the USSR were and have made significant economic reforms and allowed outside investers in, somthing USSR didnt, china is really only communist in name!!


Take Hawai for example hypathetically if a majority of them became fascists and wanted independence from the US i can hardly see people from the mainland allowing it.. and hawaii was anexed..

They might not invade in a couple of years or not at all... today, they dont have the military technology as of yet to launch a invasion with minimal casualties and a guaranteed success but in 10-15 years there military would be alot more capable..
what do you think the airforce, navy and the 750 ballistic missiles aimed at Taiwan would be used for... ? army dosnt go in first

Originally posted by TimmyJames1976@Oct 26 2005, 10:22 PM
not to mention that china has a very out dated military and military equipment, and guess who supplies the taiwanese with arms....the goo dol' u s of a....also, the little island that could happens to house the wealthiest political party in the world...the kmt has more money then even the us republican party....which means lots of foreign help if needed...then can buy allies....and yeah..china has to make bold claims about not wanting taiwan to declare independence because it is a "face" culture over here....if they did not they would be deemed weak....i dont see the status quo changing any time soon...and hell, chinas biggest inverstor is taiwan, so why would they want to invade and destroy the economy of the one country who sends mega bucks to them....but now back to the main topic...sorry for the thread highjack ya'll

[snapback]83082[/snapback]

yes alot of there military equipment is is outdated. but they are going through a rapid buildup and modernisation, China now has the world's third-largest defense budget, after the US and Russia, spending from US$70 billion to US$90 billion per year, which is still nothing compared to the U.S..

i dont support chinese opression i just think regions in certain areas just cant start demanding independence because of culural, economic etc difference. unless the country was anexed in the past ie: west papau,
i dont believe chechnya can claim independence from russia, tamil tigers from sri lanka, etc etc etc

now accept my point of view and get over it

[Somnambulation]

I would disagree Mike, the better people do economically the less they care about the type of government in power.

[LiveFreeorDie]

i dont support chinese opression i just think regions in certain areas just cant start demanding independence because of culural, economic etc difference. unless the country was anexed in the past ie: west papau,
i dont believe chechnya can claim independence from russia, tamil tigers from sri lanka, etc etc etc

I guess that means you would support the UK re-annexing the U.S. and that the American Revolution never should have occurred? You think authroitarian rule, whether based on a monarchy or some other system is acceptable?

The difference is whether you believe people have an inalienable right to govern themselves. If you beleive this, than you should support Taiwan - they want and are willing to fight for the ability to self-govern. As should all people if they feel strongly about that right and do not currently have that right. Hawaii is self-governed - they have representatives in Congress, they vote for the president. No reason to break away.

The issue is not historical ownership of territory, it is about people's rights to choose their leaders, make their own laws, form their own government through a democratic process. The Taiwanese people consider themselves first and formost Chinese. I think they will play a waiting game until the authoritarian regime in China eventually goes out with a wimper. There will be re-unification...eventually. I give them 10 years.

[chelseafc05]

Originally posted by LiveFreeorDie@Oct 27 2005, 05:30 PM
I guess that means you would support the UK re-annexing the U.S. and that the American Revolution never should have occurred?* You think authroitarian rule, whether based on a monarchy or some other system is acceptable?*

The difference is whether you believe people have an inalienable right to govern themselves.* If you beleive this, than you should support Taiwan - they want and are willing to fight for the ability to self-govern.* As should all people if they feel strongly about that right and do not currently have that right.* Hawaii is self-governed - they have representatives in Congress, they vote for the president.* No reason to break away.*

The issue is not historical ownership of territory, it is about people's rights to choose their leaders, make their own laws, form their own government through a democratic process.* The Taiwanese people consider themselves first and formost Chinese.* I think they will play a waiting game until the authoritarian regime in China eventually goes out with a wimper.* There will be re-unification...eventually.* I give them 10 years.

[snapback]83207[/snapback]

you missed the key word i said "unless the country was anexed? then the people would have reason to demand indepence

it is also a nations right to protect there source of resources whether it be the industry of taiwan or the oil fields of chechnya

[chelseafc05]

Originally posted by LiveFreeorDie@Oct 27 2005, 05:30 PM
*

.* Hawaii is self-governed - they have representatives in Congress, they vote for the president.* No reason to break away.*
.

[snapback]83207[/snapback]

it was a hypothetical scenario used for an example

[gspina]

Well here are some things to take into consideration,

Chechnya was originally its own country prior to WW2, it was taken over by the Russians,

After the fall of the USSR, Chechnya became its own country once again, of course with the stipulation that the president was one backed by Russia, when the president was killed the Russians again invaded.

Based off of your argument, Texas and California, (amongst other southern states) should be returned to Mexico, Since they origianlly belonged to Mexico prior to being annexed by the U.S.


Most of Isreal should be returned to Egypt, Jordan, and Syria.

And of course Pakistan should go back to India, or Indai should have the right to invade Pakistan, because they have to protect all the mineral rights they lost when Pakistan was formed.

[expatben]

To return to Taiwan I strongly advocate its freedom. When the revolution hit China, Taiwan made a decision not to embrace it and seperate much like Iceland did when the Nazis took over Denmark.

[chelseafc05]

Originally posted by gspina@Oct 29 2005, 02:36 PM
Well here are some things to take into consideration,

Chechnya was originally its own country prior to WW2, it was taken over by the Russians,

After the fall of the USSR, Chechnya became its own country once again, of course with the stipulation that the president was one backed by Russia, when the president was killed the Russians again invaded.

Based off of your argument, Texas and California, (amongst other southern states) should be returned to Mexico, Since they origianlly belonged to Mexico prior to being annexed by the U.S.
Most of Isreal should be returned to Egypt, Jordan, and Syria.

And of course Pakistan should go back to India, or Indai should have the right to invade Pakistan, because they have to protect all the mineral rights they lost when Pakistan was formed.

[snapback]83503[/snapback]

interesting point

[Sijuki]

So its countries that were annexed that have the right to break away and declare independence? So Texas, California, West Florida (which included parts of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Floriday), etc. can break away from the U.S.? as they were all independent countries annexed by the U.S. in the 1800's?

Viva la Revelucion!

[voyd]

China & Taiwan have been blue-balling and saber-rattling at each other peacefully for decades now...

But, I think as the Chinese gov slowly loosens up more and its citizens win more political freedoms, friction between the 2 states will naturally subside over the long run.

You have to realize that democracy is faaaarrr easier to implement on a state with a small educated population from the ground-up. It is faaaarrr more difficult to implement in a mature rural society numbering over 1 billion. That would be like suddenly removing the managerial hierarchy at a Fortune 500 company overnight and expecting it to run itself. The results would be devastating. "Reverse-engineering" democracy ("tyranny of the masses") must be done far slower on a large country. I mean, the mere logistics of mobilizing and organizing such a huge nation with limited mass transport and communication alone is daunting. Their census alone is still a nightmare ordeal - and highly inaccurate - much less would millions of voting booths be.

And even now, at just ~1/4 the size of China - the USA is starting to suffer the effects of democracy on a large, increasingly apathetic, ignorant and brainwashed mass public who increasingly rely on the gov to take full care of them (see Hurricane Katrina). That's why Alexander Tyler said that democracy has a shelf-life of about 200 years where they progressed "from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage." Remember, the US was originally founded by strongly-determined rational men from the Enlightenment period - the age of reason. But, most of our voting population now are brainwashed into bipartisan extremes or politically illiterate. And democracy in the hands of IDIOTS is, well, not that much better than authoritarianism by IDIOTS. And in fact, it's arguably worse than authoritarianism by smarter folks.

And I sure hope the fall does NOT come as catastrophically, if peacefully, as it did in the USSR and Eastern Europe. These countries are mob-ruled now with no real industry. Their women are forced to work as hookers as their men drown their misery in vodka. By mere standards of living and economic potential, China is fast surpassing them.

And btw, the "last" time states here tried to break away from the US and declare their own independence - we had the bloodiest war in history here - the Civil War. And any recent similar half-hearted attempts like various patriot or Texas independence movements are also not tolerated well at all by our Feds. Countries are ALL very territorial - regardless of form of gov. They're really not all that different...