China's Crackdown in Hong Kong (One China, Two Bad Systems)

Originally posted by Alchemist
we protest the gov is because we think our freedom of speech is beening threaten
you think i can tell you if my freedom of speech is already lose?

Tell me what is not allowed to speak in Hong Kong?

I know some people in Hong Kong want to support Taiwan Independence or even Hong Kong Independence.

Tell me what you want to say, but dare not to say please.

Do you think, even in US, you can speak anything you want? you can organize you want?

Originally posted by zcheng
Tell me what is not allowed to speak in Hong Kong?
I know some people in Hong Kong want to support Taiwan Independence or even Hong Kong Independence.

Your responce did not make very much sence. But, 500,000 do go out in the streets to protest the high cost of tea! But you do have a great Idea ZCheng, Hong Kong Independance!!!!!! Brilliant. Boy Ill bet your head would explode.....

Originally posted by FredT
Your responce did not make very much sence. But, 500,000 do go out in the streets to protest the high cost of tea! But you do have a great Idea ZCheng, Hong Kong Independance!!!!!! Brilliant. Boy Ill bet your head would explode.....

The protest only shows that HK has freedom. Remember the millions upon millions of pretestors before the Iraq war in US and around the World.

Did Bush the Wise give you a #? He did not care.

I am still waiting the answer for the quetions in above post.

Originally posted by zcheng
The protest only shows that HK has freedom. Remember the millions upon millions of pretestors before the Iraq war in US and around the World.
I am still waiting the answer for the quetions in above post.

Freedom but for how long? The protestors in Tieinniman Square had freedom for a few days as well thill they were brutaly put down. Such is freedom in the PRC. What question did you want answered????

Originally posted by zcheng
You are not Chinese and not living in HK. Let those in HK speak for themselves.

Why not, you seem to speak for the Taiwanese, a seperate and independant people! Moreover you are the one that perpetuated this whole debate. Its really sad that your government is putting up this venner of a modern progressive rule, but down deep its as if Mao is still pulling the strings from his mauselum

Originally posted by FredT
Freedom but for how long? The protestors in Tieinniman Square had freedom for a few days as well thill they were brutaly put down. Such is freedom in the PRC. What question did you want answered????

So at least you recognize that HK people has the right to protest and voice their expression, which I doubt whether it is still possible in US. Remember US keep records of those protestors?

The question I seek answer is following:
Tell me what is not allowed to speak now in Hong Kong, but was allowed to speak in British Colonial Occupation?

Originally posted by FredT
Why not, you seem to speak for the Taiwanese, a seperate and independant people! Moreover you are the one that perpetuated this whole debate. Its really sad that your government is putting up this venner of a modern progressive rule, but down deep its as if Mao is still pulling the strings from his mauselum

Are you allowed to speak for Hawaii Independence? Are you allowed to organize to the sole purpose of Hawaii independence, or any other state on the matter?

Originally posted by zcheng
Are you allowed to speak for Hawaii Independence? Are you allowed to organize to the sole purpose of Hawaii independence, or any other state on the matter?

No, nor have I ever. If you recall, I have maintained the poisition that if the bulk of the Hawaiian people wanted to leave the union, I doubt that legally anybody could do anything about it in any case. But as a practical matter it is hightly unlikely to happend in your or my lifetime.

Originally posted by FredT
No, nor have I ever. If you recall, I have maintained the poisition that if the bulk of the Hawaiian people wanted to leave the union, I doubt that legally anybody could do anything about it in any case. But as a practical matter it is hightly unlikely to happend in your or my lifetime.

It is not because it is unlikely, but because US laws does not allow that happen. You will be put into jail at the first opportunity.

Do you see my question above now?

[edit on 15-7-2004 by zcheng]

Originally posted by zcheng
It is not because it is unlikely, but because US laws does not allow that happen. You will be put into jail at the first opportunity.
Do you see my question above now?
[edit on 15-7-2004 by zcheng]

Show me the constitutional provision that does not allow a state to leave the union.....

Originally posted by FredT

Originally posted by zcheng
It is not because it is unlikely, but because US laws does not allow that happen. You will be put into jail at the first opportunity.
Do you see my question above now?
[edit on 15-7-2004 by zcheng]

Show me the constitutional provision that does not allow a state to leave the union.....

Do not you know the Civil War, why the South want to go independent and was not allowed? The constitution had not changed since then.

Even if the constitution allow that, US government will not allow that like the Civil War.

Originally posted by zcheng
[Do not you know the Civil War, why the South want to go independent and was not allowed? The constitution had not changed since then.
Even if the constitution allow that, US government will not allow that lie the Civil War.

.

Different time and a different era. The bottom line was this. The states of the Confederacy left the United States following the election of Lincoln. These states formed thier own Country. Then initiated hostilites by attacking the US Fort Sumter. This in turn lead to the Civil war. However, there was a moral aspect to this war as well, the issue of slavery. Juding by the factories in China a condition to which you are familiar.

Now Lincoln belived that the secsession of the Confereracy was against the constitution. However, due to the rather rapid start of the war, there never was a chance to leagally test those views.

Again I ask, show me in the US constitution were it says a state can leave the union?
www.house.gov...

Originally posted by FredT

Originally posted by zcheng
[Do not you know the Civil War, why the South want to go independent and was not allowed? The constitution had not changed since then.
Even if the constitution allow that, US government will not allow that lie the Civil War.

.

Different time and a different era. The bottom line was this. The states of the Confederacy left the United States following the election of Lincoln. These states formed thier own Country. Then initiated hostilites by attacking the US Fort Sumter. This in turn lead to the Civil war. However, there was a moral aspect to this war as well, the issue of slavery. Juding by the factories in China a condition to which you are familiar.

Now Lincoln belived that the secsession of the Confereracy was against the constitution. However, due to the rather rapid start of the war, there never was a chance to leagally test those views.

Again I ask, show me in the US constitution were it says a state can leave the union?
www.house.gov...

Do you know the reason why the South initiated hostilites by attacking the US Fort Sumter? Talking about consequence has no meaning, you have to know the cause.

Are you telling me what Lincoln doing was wrong? Even if it is wrong, Civil war shows a president can misinterprete the laws.

Originally posted by zcheng
Do you know the reason why the South initiated hostilites by attacking the US Fort Sumter? Talking about consequence has no meaning, you have to know the cause.
Are you telling me what Lincoln doing was wrong? Even if it is wrong, Civil war shows a president can misinterprete the laws.

Presidents unlike your Premiers (WHo belive they are gods, Mao in particular) can and have made mistakes. Lincoln was not the only president to interpret the laws wrong. The Teapot dome scandal, Iran Contra, Nixon, are all examples of this. Cause is irrelevant. The South initated hostilites aginst the North. it would be analagous to Taiwan declaring independence then attacking the mainland. In such a case the mainland as was the US would be justified in defending themselves. Why is the cause so important. Once the deed occurs cause is irrelevant.

Once again, show me in the constitution were it says that a state cannot leave the union?




[edit on 16-7-2004 by FredT]

Originally posted by FredT
Lincoln was not the only president to interpret the laws wrong.

Ok. You think Lincoln action was wrong, and you think the state or the South can declare independence.

Cause is irrelevant. The South initated hostilites aginst the North. it would be analagous to Taiwan declaring independence then attacking the mainland.

Do you know self defense? If one points gun on your head and threaten to kill you, somehow you magically killed him. Should you be charged for man-slaughter? Cause will be most relevant, especially in war.

Why is the cause so important. Once the deed occurs cause is irrelevant.

You sure do not know the meaning of "Provocation". I really can not find more dumb than you.

Once again, show me in the constitution were it says that a state cannot leave the union?

Ask you president, because he is the one decide on war or not. Constitution does not matter. Show me where in Constitution say that US can invade Iraq.

Let's stop the name-calling and insults, please.

Debate the issue, not the intelligence of the poster.

Originally posted by zcheng
Do you know self defense? If one points gun on your head and threaten to kill you, somehow you magically killed him. Should you be charged for man-slaughter? Cause will be most relevant, especially in war.

How does Taiwan Hong Kong or Taiwan declaring independance put a gun to your head? Esp, since you do keep going on about the might and the will of your people. You keep bringing up the US civil war as a justification to your point, but we actually have a more modern version of this that occured a few years ago. As the Soviet Union States started to declare independance, did Moscow send in the troops to prevent this from occuring? No, that is why we have alot of countries with "stan" on the end of them right now.

You sure do not know the meaning of "Provocation". I really can not find more dumb than you.

How is the declaring of Independance a Provocation of the all mighty China?

Ask you president, because he is the one decide on war or not. Constitution does not matter. Show me where in Constitution say that US can invade Iraq.

For starters the preamble:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Note the "provide for a common defence"

Section 8
Clause 10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Clause 13: To provide and maintain a Navy;

Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Here is an analysis of the presidents ability to go to war. Do remeber that he had the permission of congress to do so.

Since the founding of the Republic, Congress and the President have waged battle over which branch of the government has the constitutional authority over taking the nation to war. The Constitution of the United States does not specifically grant the President the authority to go to war. Instead the Constitution gives Congress the authority to declare war and to raise and support Armies, and provide and maintain a Navy ( Article 1, sec.8). The President is the Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into actual Service of the United States (Article 2, sec.2.).The Constitution does not state specifically whether the President commands the armed forces in peacetime as well as during wars. Nor does it say specifically that Congress has to declare war for the President to become the Commander in Chief. Successive Presidents have interpreted the Commander in Chief clause differently and when necessary invoked it to justify deploying the military abroad. The President can also rely on other constitutional or extra-legal doctrines to justify his actions.[1]

In the past 200 hundred years American Presidents have deployed the United States military in a number of conflict situations abroad without Congressional authorization. In the history of the United States, Congress has only declared war five times: the War 1812, the Mexican war of 1848, the Spanish-American of 1898, World Wars I and II, and the Korean War.[2] On the other hand, the President has deployed forces into hostility over thirty times without Congressional authorization.[3] The President usually deploy the military first and then inform Congress, which in turn endorses the President�s action. Congress has generally supported the decision of the President to deploy the armed forces abroad by passage of joint resolutions. These joint resolutions are not declarations of war, per se, but rather a demonstration of Congressional intent to support the troops while they are in a hostile environment.
During the Vietnam War Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, giving President Johnson broad powers to retaliate against North Vietnamese attack on American vessels in the Gulf of Tonkin. North Vietnam had previously attacked two American vessels, the Maddox and the C. Turner Joy. President Johnson in return ordered U.S. warplanes to bomb North Vietnamese torpedo bases. The resolution was not a declaration of war, however, Johnson used it to justify increasing American involvement in the Vietnam War. Following Vietnam, Congress passed the War Powers Act in 1973, in an attempt to curtail the authority of the President to wage war without Congressional authorization.[4] The War Powers Act was meant to constrain the President�s ability to wage war and to give Congress a voice in matter of war
clr.prf.cuni.cz...

Originally posted by superpyz

You really make me sick, how can you judge a people so simply? I'm not a minyun(Democracy activist), I am a international student. I come here by myself, I took GRE TOEFL by myself, I work harder to get my plane tickets. I'm not so luck that I have a communist official dad, then I could get money from people directly.

You still think CCP is the future, I insist democracy is Chinese future. You are like CCP, judge people like betrayer, Hanjian. because they are afraid people fight against them, because they scare loosing their power.

It seems that u r older than me, but I think u r more naive than me.

Wow, well said. You are the kind of Chinese I like and admire, just like Jiang Yanyong.


[edit on 16-7-2004 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by zcheng
Great observation, though not true. The problem is that the Voting in US is no different.

Very likely your right to vote will be cancelled this year. No election, do not have a heart attack please. :LOL:

No, i voted for Bush, and I know that probably most south Floridians voted for Bush, at least the ones I know all voted for Bush. BTW, I will vote for Bush again.

Also i predict that even though we will probably be attacked in the US, we will have elections this year. Lets see what happens. Condolezza Rica already said that the Bush administration is not thinking on postponing the elections at all. I think it was just a rumor.

Originally posted by zcheng

Originally posted by FredT
BTW, no one in California is using Electronic voting. Let me ask you this who were the canidates for premier during your last election?

We do not need the election show, we have a system to ensure long term plan and growth.
Why only 20% eligible US people vote? Whether you vote or not does not change a dime. That is the cruel reality in US, face it.

Yeah, ensuring a long term plan by being a dictatorship.

BTW, who gave you the percentages of Americans that vote?.....
Let me help you, perhaps your government wants you to think otherwise.

www.gwu.edu...

Scroll down in the above link to find percentages of votes in past years including 2000. The average amount of Americans that vote in the US have not changed much since 1972.