2016 (368)
2017 (123)
2018 (89)
2020 (269)
成立临时政府，香港还没有独立？！
一剑飘尘
香港民主派宣布成立临时政府，有人跟我说没有独立！开什么玩笑？宣布目前政府被中共控制，失去民意基础，所以要成立临时政府，还不是独立？嘴上说不是，有用吗？网民说有用吗？关键是中共高层会怎么认为。因为是否出兵，是他们说了算。
香港民主派这样做，完全是被现实逼出来的。林郑自从废除送中后，没有进一步怀柔。反而一再激化矛盾：港警开枪伤人后，立刻宣布禁止蒙面。我前面就说过，这是故意刺激香港民众。果然，现在搞出个临时政府。我并不认为这个临时政府能实质性改变香港。如果是89年北京学生成立临时政府，倒是有可能让中共政权彻底瓦解。但今天的香港，内：得不到中国民众的支持和同情；外：欧美个个是缩头乌龟。我觉得美国通过“香港民主法案”已经是能做到的最大善意了。英国本来对香港有更大责任，但是看看那个国家猥琐油腻样儿吧，整个给大宪章丢人显眼的熊样。
所以香港成立临时政府，其实只是意气之争，不仅不会获得“五大诉求”的胜利，反而将香港带上危险的境地。因为这个举措将极大刺激中国高层，习近平也因此被逼上梁山：出兵镇压，将被全世界隔绝。不出兵，暴露他纸老虎实质，很可能被内部斗争赶下台。当然，习近平但有点儿头脑，就应该明白，逼他的是林郑月娥，以及她背后的中共高层。
分析一下林郑也蛮有意思。立场一直以来，都比中共政府还要强硬。在李克强都宣布“坚持一国两制，港人治港”情况下，不仅不站在香港人的角度，放下身段，利用女性优势展开柔性攻势。却表现得比独裁者还要刚愎自用。说她傻13，是侮辱了英语第二个字母！她自己那段外泄的跟香港商界精英谈话中，说明她非常清楚香港需要的是什么！她也清楚中共和香港的分歧。但是现在她一系列的做法，逼得李嘉诚都公然反水，她上面没有人，才怪！我估计她也喜欢下面有人，两种姿势轮着来。
对于香港民众来说，成立临时政府，是绝境中使出胜负手：成败在此一举！但他们是否知道这样做的结果？因为香港人决定不了香港人的命运！中共内部派系斗争才会决定他们的命运！确实可悲，但这是不争的事实。我曾经在一个多月前有一个视频，就是说：只有习近平才能决定香港的未来。几十万香港人人、几百万香港人游行，对于中共来说，其实不痛不痒。但是这次临时政府的成立，将极大刺痛中共的神经。临时政府是被林郑月娥逼出来的，而港独是被中共逼出来的。
20191005
开什么国际玩笑？
在冲击立法会发生之前香港警察并没有抓人，甚至连防暴警察都没有出动，所有今天香港的暴力行为始于七月一日的冲击并捣毁立法会，当一千人冲进立法会时守卫的100左右警察连正经的防暴设备都没装备，因此不得不撤退。而元朗事件google一下也知道是发生在七月二十一日，暴力早就是示威主要方式了。
元朗地处乡下，根本不是港九核心地区，示威者下乡的目的就是为了破坏当地商业，因为元朗经济主要以边贸为主。
也就是与大陆联系密切。
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 一剑飘尘 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 一剑飘尘'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.
"不过很难具备可行性". I knew you were going to say that. Aren't you being contradictory and 叶公好龙? On the one hand, you claim you want to reform American democracy a task 很难具备可行性 by definition. On the other hand, when confronted with any detailed proposal, you reflexively declare the task impossible inoperable. This perfect exemplifies 叶公好龙. Don't you agree?
"按照我们在美国生活了30多年的体会，如果是法律规定了，不管在你心里是对还是错，不遵守就是违法，可以把你关起来，也可以直接射杀。" 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 一剑飘尘'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.
说某掌权者没有智商，是大忌。没有智商，不能上位。
如果是林郑，她是想黑一尊吗？她敢吗？
如果是一尊的决定，那么一尊的下一步棋是什么？
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.
都是贸易, 不是免费的, 贸易就意味着双方都受益, 不含糊吧？ 原乡人
有些东西是逼出来的, 香港人由和平逼到变成勇武, 要反对极权, 要反对整个体制, 就要使用武力去打倒体制
一切决定皆来自一尊！
何必屡次为一尊辩护？