2016 (368)
2017 (123)
2018 (89)
2020 (269)
成立臨時政府，香港還沒有獨立？！
一劍飄塵
香港民主派宣布成立臨時政府，有人跟我說沒有獨立！開什麽玩笑？宣布目前政府被中共控製，失去民意基礎，所以要成立臨時政府，還不是獨立？嘴上說不是，有用嗎？網民說有用嗎？關鍵是中共高層會怎麽認為。因為是否出兵，是他們說了算。
香港民主派這樣做，完全是被現實逼出來的。林鄭自從廢除送中後，沒有進一步懷柔。反而一再激化矛盾：港警開槍傷人後，立刻宣布禁止蒙麵。我前麵就說過，這是故意刺激香港民眾。果然，現在搞出個臨時政府。我並不認為這個臨時政府能實質性改變香港。如果是89年北京學生成立臨時政府，倒是有可能讓中共政權徹底瓦解。但今天的香港，內：得不到中國民眾的支持和同情；外：歐美個個是縮頭烏龜。我覺得美國通過“香港民主法案”已經是能做到的最大善意了。英國本來對香港有更大責任，但是看看那個國家猥瑣油膩樣兒吧，整個給大憲章丟人顯眼的熊樣。
所以香港成立臨時政府，其實隻是意氣之爭，不僅不會獲得“五大訴求”的勝利，反而將香港帶上危險的境地。因為這個舉措將極大刺激中國高層，習近平也因此被逼上梁山：出兵鎮壓，將被全世界隔絕。不出兵，暴露他紙老虎實質，很可能被內部鬥爭趕下台。當然，習近平但有點兒頭腦，就應該明白，逼他的是林鄭月娥，以及她背後的中共高層。
分析一下林鄭也蠻有意思。立場一直以來，都比中共政府還要強硬。在李克強都宣布“堅持一國兩製，港人治港”情況下，不僅不站在香港人的角度，放下身段，利用女性優勢展開柔性攻勢。卻表現得比獨裁者還要剛愎自用。說她傻13，是侮辱了英語第二個字母！她自己那段外泄的跟香港商界精英談話中，說明她非常清楚香港需要的是什麽！她也清楚中共和香港的分歧。但是現在她一係列的做法，逼得李嘉誠都公然反水，她上麵沒有人，才怪！我估計她也喜歡下麵有人，兩種姿勢輪著來。
對於香港民眾來說，成立臨時政府，是絕境中使出勝負手：成敗在此一舉！但他們是否知道這樣做的結果？因為香港人決定不了香港人的命運！中共內部派係鬥爭才會決定他們的命運！確實可悲，但這是不爭的事實。我曾經在一個多月前有一個視頻，就是說：隻有習近平才能決定香港的未來。幾十萬香港人人、幾百萬香港人遊行，對於中共來說，其實不痛不癢。但是這次臨時政府的成立，將極大刺痛中共的神經。臨時政府是被林鄭月娥逼出來的，而港獨是被中共逼出來的。
20191005
開什麽國際玩笑？
在衝擊立法會發生之前香港警察並沒有抓人，甚至連防暴警察都沒有出動，所有今天香港的暴力行為始於七月一日的衝擊並搗毀立法會，當一千人衝進立法會時守衛的100左右警察連正經的防暴設備都沒裝備，因此不得不撤退。而元朗事件google一下也知道是發生在七月二十一日，暴力早就是示威主要方式了。
元朗地處鄉下，根本不是港九核心地區，示威者下鄉的目的就是為了破壞當地商業，因為元朗經濟主要以邊貿為主。
也就是與大陸聯係密切。
I need to go to bed now. I may come back to talk to you later. But could you please do me a favor? Could you please keep writing in Chinese? Your English is horrid. It took me several rouds of rereading to realize that you do not write English but translate your Chinese literally and mechanically word by word into English. That is what peole call Chinglish. Please save all of us from wasting our time by writing Chinese? I am sure others would agree, too. I can read Chinese perfect. I assure you. Thank you!
You must ask why then I write in English. It is out of necessity. I use both languages with native fluency. But I have difficulty typing Chinese. I use Pin Yin without a problem. But the software keeps giving me wrong words with the same pronouciations as the right ones in a long sentence. Maybe I am using a rubbish piece of Chinese software. But that is the problem. Most people here can read English without a hitch, can't they?
"in this country our cowboy..." This country you are talking about is the United frigging States of America under the US Constitution with the Second Amendment no less. The cowboys are Americans! Is Hongkong part of frigging America? Well, there would not have been a problem in the first place had that been true, would there? China is not America, Hongkong is NOT part of America. There is no Constitution, no just law, no democracy and no due process in China an Hongkong. The US has all the above. That is the fundamental distinction. What are you talking about? What are you smoking? I told you you were confused and befuddled. You are.
"I was a board member of a cooperation here and I was educated that do my work to change" That is exactly what 一劍飄塵 and I have been laboring to tell you and what you seem to refuse or too blind to see. You are in a country or a coperation that allows you a seat at the board and a due process to institute and change the law. Hongkong is now part of the country that refuses to allow exactly that.
In the latter country, much as in the Nazi Thrid Reich, however many cowboys there are and however much a cowboy you are, they will elliminate you with a bullet to your head or sending you to gulags.
How much more can we do to help you untwist yourself?
Do you think we should smash a building if the law of smoking indoor in US is illegal? What I mean is that do whatever you could to change the system even very small, not think if the system is not fare and you are free to do whatever. I was a board member of a cooperation here and I was educated that do my work to change, not by destroy to change even the most think the system is not right.
What does searching for data and reference have to do with 一劍飄塵's rebuttal of your arguments? Are you talking about the 50:50 polarization you are quoting? The numbers all depend on the definition and the data one uses and prone to manipulation. You can get completely different numbers for these kind of vague concepts. He has refuted the basic premises of all your arguments.
Why don't you respond to his rebuttal point by point, besides the vague 50:50 polarity ratio?
I am not sure how what you have just said relates to what I am saying. You originally advocated abiding any law no matter who instituted it and how it is instituted, and equating laws instituted through a democratic process and the ones dictated by a few. I pointed out these are substantially different. What you are saying now has nothing to do with any of these.
By the way, what Kennedy said was wrong. But that is a topic for another day. Even there, you are again confusing two very distinct entities. Would Kennedy have said the same if that country is not one prescribed by a Constitution and has a government that is democratic but a dictatorial like the Nazi Thrid Reich? This country is not that country. Having lived in the most democratic and most free country for 30 years, you still do not know the distinction?
Yes, you are right. I am a libertarian. Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, Murray Rothbard are my spiritual fellows. It is rare a Chinese would read enough to recognize any of these names. Glad that you do.
"不過很難具備可行性". I knew you were going to say that. Aren't you being contradictory and 葉公好龍? On the one hand, you claim you want to reform American democracy a task 很難具備可行性 by definition. On the other hand, when confronted with any detailed proposal, you reflexively declare the task impossible inoperable. This perfect exemplifies 葉公好龍. Don't you agree?
"按照我們在美國生活了30多年的體會，如果是法律規定了，不管在你心裏是對還是錯，不遵守就是違法，可以把你關起來，也可以直接射殺。" I do not know whether you are truly ignorant or pretend to be. Have you never considered the question whether the law is freely voted by the citizen into place or dictated by a dictator? Will you happily hand over your hard earned assets and walk into gheto or even the gas chamber had you been a jew in Nazi Germany, simply because the law of the Third Reich had stipulated the Jews ought to be stripped of their assets and corralled into a jewish ghetto and even exterminated wholesale?
My God, you have lived in the US for some 30 years and you still have not gained an iota of a capacity for critical thinking and just do whatever you are told to? Wow is all I can say.
As for Bill Clinton, he is the very instigator and abetor of the evil taking root in Beijing, by writing a blank check and ramming through China's WTO membership without any collateral, safeguard and supervision mecahnism in place. How could he possibly be your ideal candidate for presidency? And you say that with a 20/20 hindsight?
So you do not really have any idea how to reform American democracy. I, on the other hand, do have some ideas.
1) Either use a flat tax rate or weigh the votes to the proportion of the tax one pays with respect to the whole population. This matches exactly 一劍飄塵's proposal.
2) Deprecate the legal concept of corporations. There are only flesh and blood individuals in the eye of the law. There should be no virtual entity of a corporation bearing legal responsibility.
3) Disband all executive branch agencies except those of defense, justice, and IRS. Strip governments, be they federal or state or local, of the power interfering in the economy, granting monopolistic power and tax breaks to any entities.
說某掌權者沒有智商，是大忌。沒有智商，不能上位。
如果是林鄭，她是想黑一尊嗎？她敢嗎？
如果是一尊的決定，那麽一尊的下一步棋是什麽？
How would you suggest reforming American democracy? I am really curious.
The fact that Clinton (which one, Hillary or Bill?) or Bloomberg is your ideal president does not bode well for your reform suggestion.
都是貿易, 不是免費的, 貿易就意味著雙方都受益, 不含糊吧？ 原鄉人
有些東西是逼出來的, 香港人由和平逼到變成勇武, 要反對極權, 要反對整個體製, 就要使用武力去打倒體製
一切決定皆來自一尊！
何必屢次為一尊辯護？