Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
Who else? |
Para, He's a pilot. I'm ground crew/systems. We've both done this before. I'll step off if it's upsetting the living room. | |||
|
Shorted to Atmosphere |
Jager, that was a great history lesson. | |||
|
| Peace through superior firepower  |
OK, you fellas have your own rulers, then? No, I just wanted to post a dick-measuring joke. | |||
|
| Who else? |
I sensed that. 
You didn't quite get credit for that, but that was good. Thank you. | |||
|
| Member |
Israel - 2000 year old land grievance somewhat addressed in 1949. Peoples are very protective of their lands. You bet it is human nature to make political policy on only god knows hold old a land grievence. Study history - France-Germany , Alsace and Lorraine 1600's when Louis 14th took it for France, to 1871 then 1914 and then 1940. There is no way to really address it, This is part of the reason we are a war-like people. Sucks, but it is what it is. -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- It only stands to reason that where there's sacrifice, there's someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there's service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master. Ayn Rand "He gains votes ever and anew by taking money from everybody and giving it to a few, while explaining that every penny was extracted from the few to be giving to the many." Ogden Nash from his poem - The Politician | |||
|
| Who else? |
I reconsidered. Some of your statements do deserve some pouring over. You were seemingly tickled with the word 'lie', which is why I purposely used it in my response. But you left the important part out. You never actually discounted anything I said. You just injected your own falsehoods. But let's take a look.
No, I’ve actually read the documents that have governed the territory for decades that all signatories agreed to. That they have been running things with those in place since the British left with only a few hiccups is proof that what you are alluding to is false. I would suggest you do some actual reading instead of thinking you’re the body expert.
Yes, it did. So much so that they laid it all out in the documents above. The documents explain it quite well and with little ambiguity. Oh, and its “Special Administrative Zone”, not ‘Special Economic Zone”.
Where did I say that? And you’re comparing the two sets of protestors there and here? That’s pretty un-intelligent on its face value alone. But you have the same idiotic logic when you also hoped to claim I thought Hong Kong and Taiwan were the ‘same’. It is YOU that is trying to put words in other people’s mouths, not me. There’s a difference in taking someone’s actual statements and positing the next logical question, which is what I did. When you say “Special economic zone never meant freedom, nor did it mean autonomy” in response to my saying the people of Hong Kong are about to lose whatever freedom and autonomy they enjoy, it’s perfectly logical to point out… “Good. Then there will be little or no change for the people there as China marches in. They should be celebrating and popping champagne corks in no time.” The sarcasm is required, because your statement is not only false, it defies all logic and evidence. And I am speaking for myself. And maybe for a good number of people in Hong Kong, because you certainly aren’t. Heck, you can’t even get on the same page as our own government. I guess when you sound more like a supporter of China cutting the time in half before they assimilate/absorb Hong Kong and it’s people – and anyone challenges that or points it out – making false claims about what I actually said comes easy. I simply pointed out you are not the ’expert’. In fact you are far from it.
Wrong. As the documents above indicate, since the agreement, they have enjoyed a good bit of freedom. I’m not going to touch on autonomy here – because you’ve been blown out of the sky heavily every time the word comes up in every discussion or document on the subject. Let’s see: “The current social and economic systems in Hong Kong will remain unchanged, and so will the life-style. Rights and freedoms, including those of the person, of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of travel, of movement, of correspondence, of strike, of choice of occupation, of academic research and of religious belief will be ensured by law in the [HKSAR]. Private property, ownership of enterprises, legitimate right of inheritance and foreign investment will be protected by law.” Sounds like a Bill of Rights to me! And the Hong Kong National Security Law that China passed under cover of darkness pretty much shreds all of those above rights. Now, can you explain how this new law doesn’t affect or change the practice or use of those rights that have been in place and enjoyed for decades? THAT IS THE KEY QUESTION IN THIS. Which is why my guess is you will pop smoke, chaff, gaslight and obfuscate. But please, shock us all. No freedom of association, no right to assembly, warrant-less searches, a new secret police, detention without bail, seizure of assets, no freedom of the press, no free travel, correspondence seized or monitored…I mean the list goes on. But we’re supposed to believe there is nothing lost here – because they ‘never really had it’?
Wrong, Bucko. A downright falsehood – but I’ll use your word – LIE. You're claiming none of us can see what is plainly written in the agreements that have governed Hong Kong for decades. It's a myth! You go there Jerry Nadler!
Yes, they did. Right up until this year. Unless you’re dismissing them like Zheng Yanxiong and claiming the agreements were expired and had no value or meaning anymore a long time ago. Which is a lie, by the way.
Wrong. Hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets. That is not a 'small percentage' in a territory of 7 million. You apparently weren’t watching the same protests the rest of the world was. But I guess when you’re flying rubber dog shit out of Hong Kong you might have missed some of the important stuff. Here’s a newsflash, Ghostrider. The pattern is full – and you’re not in it. The people of Hong Kong don’t give a shit about what you think, either. And if you are going to spend any more time there, you better keep toeing the party line like you’re doing, because the statement you’ll have to sign will inform you of the implications under the new Security Law if you don’t. It applies to foreign nationals, too. You say something bad about the PRC here and land in Hong Kong, you may have a reception waiting.
Well, that’s news to the entire world. And it’s your word against a lot of people’s word that actually matters. Because they understand the terms of the freedoms they did enjoy - and were supposed to until 2047. If you are using 'free' in the sense of it being it's own country and having a sovereign body of laws, no, it has never met that definition. No one has claimed that. I sure didn't. But it's typically you putting words in others mouths, since you seem to be really prone to projecting your behavior onto others. The bottom line is, if Hong Kong never had those freedoms and it's people never experienced or used them, then this new Security Law wouldn't even have made mention in the news. But it's BIG news. Trump even signed an EO over it, recognizing the autonomy is now largely eliminated and it's people are now being subjugated like never before. Has Trump ever been to Hong Kong? You might want to contact him and give him the same diatribe you invoked here.  This message has been edited. Last edited by: Jager, | |||
|
| 7.62mm Crusader |
I guess Hong Kong couldn't be trusted to have a 2A. You fellas make for a interesting read. | |||
|
| Who else? |
Yeah, that was never likely. Look at England. They don't even trust their own people. And China was never going to let that happen. | |||
|
| Who else? |
I'm at your shoulder with that. | |||
|
| Member |
I didn't bother to quote the rest because it was bullshit. You've already established that you can do a google search, or think you can, and you've already demonstrated poor reading comprehension. What Hong Kong has to say about autonomy is irrelevant; so long as it remains a property of China, and it does, what happens in Hong Kong has been, and will be, at the pleasure of Beijing. Poking the bull won't change that. It will erode whatever illusions of "freedom" residents enjoy. Riot, act out against the party, get slapped down. It really is that simple. Hong Kong is neither a country, nor truly autonomous. China has always had the ability to do as the party will, with Hong Kong. Suggesting otherwise is the same stupid mentality with which a pedestrian might argue right of way in a crosswalk, over a semi-truck. The pedestrian can say whatever he wishes. He can even taunt the truck. In the end, the pedestrian is powerless against the truck. The pedestrian crosses the street at the will and pleasure of the truck driver, and if the truck driver elects to not stop, the pedestrian falls. It's the same with Hong Kong. Beijing has been tolerant, up until protesters gave the party a reason not to be. You might not know that, if all you do is google. Get up. Go to Hong Kong. It won't take you long to figure it out.
I'm both, actually; Neither is relevant. | |||
|
| Who else? |
As I expected, you missed the point entirely. Let's review how someone demonstrates they are out of their league in a discussion.
Actually, it is YOUR reading comprehension that is lacking. Pretty much everything you posted had absolutely nothing to do in rebutting anything I actually said. To the point you look ridiculous. Not only did you misread what I initially posted and hoped to take me to task on, it's almost as if you had to purport positions and things I never said to hope to have an actual point. Pretty pathetic.
Show me where I claimed otherwise. You can't, because I never did. I guess when your getting shellacked, you take whatever cheap shots you think you can get away with. Hope you're beginning to grasp you underestimated how attention to detail is present in other individuals - and that others might have more knowledge than you about Hong Kong when your knowledge is limited to flying rubber dog shit out of there. Trying to put put words in my mouth isn't working there, but you can't stop yourself because that's all you've got.
There you go again, doubling down on stupid. Show me where I suggested the people of Hong Kong scream "Wolverines!" Again, you can't, because I'm not so stupid as to suggest that. Why must you continually play straw men? Because you're position can't maintain a posture and stand on it's own in the face of the actual facts and history I've posted. I never said Hong Kong was a country - nor did I say it was autonomous. I said they were going to lose the autonomy they had and the rights they had enjoyed. And that it was happening 27 years earlier than agreed to by the participants. Try to pay attention a little better. You might understand what is being talked about and realize it's okay to sit down and STFU and know you have nothing to offer to the discussion. And "Poking the dragon" is the phrase you were hoping to turn. The 'bear' would be Russia.
Show me where I suggested otherwise. Anywhere in the thread. Really. A pilot is supposed to have - and exhibit a higher degree of attention to detail. You're showing me I never want to board any aircraft you're piloting when you're making decisions without reading the actual documents you're basing them on - or are forming opinions on and are making statements about. I mean, that was quite a little graphic episode there, that served no one. Axiomatic popping of smoke and chaff. I expected no less. In fact, I predicted it.
Oh, I do know that, gupster. Far more than you think I do. What's happened here is you underestimated who you thought you were talking down to, and it's bitten you in the ass in a public forum. The protestors should have went home and STFU once the extradition law was suspended - and realized they were 'poking the bear' trying to make a point they were never going to be successful in making. Kind of like you should have done in this thread, in all honesty. You have more in common with those presumptuous protestors than even you knew. You might not know that if all you do is fly in and out of someplace and claim you're somehow an expert on anyplace.
Nope, no reason to return. Especially not now with the new Security Law applying to foreign nationals. What I've typed here alone would get my tit in a wringer - and unlike you, I know when to not wander into something and instead STFU.
Sure it is. But you stick to piloting and hope your retirement ticket comes up before your decision and judgement one does. Be careful out there. A quick review: You stated Hong Kong enjoyed no autonomy - and no freedom for it's people. You are absolutely wrong about that - which is why you retreated to your imagined pedestal and posted vacuous statements that have absolutely nothing to do with anything I posted - or that you tried to argue against. You're a regular Don Quixote there, tilting at windmills. May your acuity not fail you in a control position. You act as if I was arguing Hong Kong should rebel, protest or challenge the PRC, of which they are a part - in some ridiculous hope they might prevail. That is never going to happen - and you know I never said that - but here you are trying to pretend that I did. Doesn't get much more weak than that. Add some strawmen you found near those windmills you tilted at. So, your 'rebuttal', if you can even call it that - is a huge load of rubber dog shit - and pretty much what I expected from our resident bus driver. When you never address the facts presented - and only address ones you claim were presented - there's a disconnect with reality. Perhaps even a sense of desperation. And a high degree of bullshit. Not to worry, though. Trump and Pompeo have a good grasp of what's going on and needs to be done - and what needn't be touched in futility. China is flailing where it knows it can. But as long as they pay a higher price than they expend - it's a win. Hong Kong is losing the autonomy and freedoms that they had, 27 years early. That is what was posited - and it remains as true now as it was when it was stated. I had it "figured out" before you ever replied to my initial post. I think everyone has that down at this point. But thank you for playing. | |||
|
| Lawyers, Guns and Money  |
Maybe we could have a poll? And let the members vote on biggest dick? "Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." -- Justice Janice Rogers Brown "The United States government is the largest criminal enterprise on earth." -rduckwor | |||
|
Shall Not Be Infringed |
^^^  ____________________________________________________________ If Some is Good, and More is Better.....then Too Much, is Just Enough !! Trump 2024....Save America! "May Almighty God bless the United States of America" - parabellum 7/26/20 Live Free or Die! | |||
|
| Who else? |
| |||
|
| Who else? |
I must concede at least one point that Gupp made that he is absolutely correct on. Jimmy Lai was released from custody after his arrest under the new Security Law. He spoke to the press and what he said is profoundly accurate in the drivers behind the PRCs recent 'crackdown': "Lai told the BBC he found the answer to that question and came through the experience more determined than ever, concluding he would not have done things any other way because “this is my character,” but he also realized Hong Kong’s dissidents must be “more cautious in our resistance to preserve our rule of law and freedom.” “We have to be more careful and creative in resistance,” he said. “We can’t be as radical as before, especially young people, because the more radical, the shorter the lifespan we have in our fighting. We have to really use our brain and patience, because this is a long fight.” The protestors have gone too far in their demands - and mistakenly think they have actual leverage. They absolutely do not. Jimmy Lai is a good man and a Christian. He is also a wise man and wants the best for the people of Hong Kong. I like him. A lot. He knows the protestors overplayed their hand and brought the acceleration on the territory - and now it's NOT just the new Security Law that will make things more tenuous, but the loss of economic status with the United States that will bring more misery. In that regard, I also offer the concession to Gupp that there is some similarity in the protestors there - and here - in the fact that both are overplaying their hands. | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
© SIGforum 2024