Let's get the Facts Right on China.

[Dr. Voodoo Man]

I've blocked him so fortunately cannot see what he's rambling about but TBH I don't think he believes in much. Rather... he's 'seen the light' after smoking a bong and reading a pro-Russia/China blog that's 'edited' by a Whitlam-era mandarin who's stuck in the wrong millennium.

The result? Ill-informed tribalism that leans on implausible CIA conspiracy theories and claims we're all being brainwashed by Rupert Murdoch.

IMO anybody with half a brain can tell that...

1. A private individual owning an influential media empire is wholly different from a government controlling the only permitted source of news.

2. Charging people with hacking defence systems or mishandling protected information (which is protected pursuant to public legislation)

3. Bombing the fark out of a neighbouring country (using conscripts, convicted felons and private mercenaries) with the intention of expanding your borders into the said country is different from sending professional peacekeeping troops into a country to stop its government from paying Al Qaeda to commit acts of terror in western countries.

4. A 'senior fellow' at a reputable university is different from a 'senior fellow' at a university that doesn't even exist.

The list goes on. The guy's a fool...

Its weird because I see you as the biggest fool. Is that your Italian name? Foolio

[Paddo Colt 61]

Yep, best you can the rambling Issy, you're not doing yourself or your "cause" ( I struggle to see what that is beyond mindless conformity) any good at all.

[zac]

This is the China thread Zac Could you please stay on topic

there's too much playing the ball and not the man in life and in china.

[Paddo Colt 61]

[QUOTE=Andrew Walker; This is the China thread Zac Could you please stay on topic

No, I think Zac is right. Some on here are much more concerned with personal invective than they are with addressing issues. It's no way to conduct discussion though, ironically, it often works, knowing very little about anything, most people resort to and are attracted by the stoush. Many think that he whose personal abuse is loudest and most sustained, wins the argument regardless of the absence of any content or reason.

You hear it all the time - "He won't take a backward step" about some loon who really has nothing to say when all's said and done. It's like doing your block is a virtue.

[Andrew Walker]

[QUOTE=Paddo Colt 61;n985456][QUOTE=Andrew Walker; This is the China thread Zac Could you please stay on topic

No, I think Zac is right. Some on here are much more concerned with personal invective than they are with addressing issues. It's no way to conduct discussion though, ironically, it often works, knowing very little about anything, most people resort to and are attracted by the stoush. Many think that he whose personal abuse is loudest and most sustained, wins the argument regardless of the absence of any content or reason.

You hear it all the time - "He won't take a backward step" about some loon who really has nothing to say when all's said and done. It's like doing your block is a virtue.

[/QUOTE]

PC I’m afraid we have a few people here trying to derail, besmirch and damage this threads credibility along with some of its high quality contributors

Zac whilst a high quality contributor to these type of matters is playing into the hands of the people trying to blacken this thread by veering off topic.

[zac]

reading a book about hong kong atm. the brits had 150 years to introduce democracy to hong kong but, apart from a belated, half-arsed attempt in the last 5 years, didn't think democracy was vital for the functioning of hong kong. you can see why the chinese are sceptical about western criticisms of their lack of democracy - a major western power had a century and a half to introduce democracy to chinese people and didn't take the chance.
to be fair, the brits did allow a degree of freedom and established the rule of law so their reign might even be seen as benign but if i'm chinese, without a democratic tradition to guide me, and looking at a sustained period of economic growth, of millions of people getting out of poverty, i'm taking western criticisms with a grain of salt

[Paddo Colt 61]

Fair comment Zac but you have an inflated opinion of "Democracy" and the role of "the people" in it. The ones bankrolling and promoting "democracy" unrest in HK are people like the media billionaire Jack Ma (and of course the US and Britain). He's part of a long line of rich and powerful "democrats" stretching from the French Revolution. Liberal Democracy is a construct of the bourgeoisie. The "people" are easily manipulated if one has control of the means of communication. Issy opined that privately owned media is better than State owned but if it's a monopoly, what's the difference?

[King Salvo]

People like Comrade Paddo are easily manipulated especially by the anti west/capitalism pro China and Russia Conspiracy Theorist far left site he get's all his fictional "News" from

[King Salvo]

reading a book about hong kong atm. the brits had 150 years to introduce democracy to hong kong but, apart from a belated, half-arsed attempt in the last 5 years, didn't think democracy was vital for the functioning of hong kong. you can see why the chinese are sceptical about western criticisms of their lack of democracy - a major western power had a century and a half to introduce democracy to chinese people and didn't take the chance.
to be fair, the brits did allow a degree of freedom and established the rule of law so their reign might even be seen as benign but if i'm chinese, without a democratic tradition to guide me, and looking at a sustained period of economic growth, of millions of people getting out of poverty, i'm taking western criticisms with a grain of salt

You need to read another book one has to say

Do you think China would have allowed a democracy in Hong Kong with a full elected Government at any stage especially under a Brutal Authoritarian and Totalitarian Communist regime such as Mao's- It would mean they would be an independent country - Under the treaty agreement Britain was to “preserve the colonial status of Hong Kong.” until Hong Kong was transferred to Chinese Control after 1st July 1997

[Paddo Colt 61]

Yes...yes...I'm sure you've said all of that already Kingsley. To the point of tedium. Still I guess you are impressed by the Illusory Truth Effect that I recently pointed to. Say it often enough and bingo, it's true.

[Dr. Voodoo Man]

You need to read another book one has to say

Do you think China would have allowed a democracy in Hong Kong with a full elected Government at any stage especially under a Brutal Authoritarian and Totalitarian Communist regime such as Mao's- It would mean they would be an independent country - Under the treaty agreement Britain was to “preserve the colonial status of Hong Kong.” until Hong Kong was transferred to Chinese Control after 1st July 1997

Don't let the truth get in the way of your idiotic rantings Lay Down Sally. Hong Kong has never had a democracy and that was the choice of the British. You know, the same people who would not allow Chinese to live above a certain point towards Victoria Peak. Mainland China has had fark all say in how Hong Kong operated prior to 1997.

[zac]

You need to read another book one has to say

Do you think China would have allowed a democracy in Hong Kong with a full elected Government at any stage especially under a Brutal Authoritarian and Totalitarian Communist regime such as Mao's- It would mean they would be an independent country - Under the treaty agreement Britain was to “preserve the colonial status of Hong Kong.” until Hong Kong was transferred to Chinese Control after 1st July 1997

the brits took hk after the 1841 war so they had the place for a while. the communists didn't take power until 1949 so hard to say that the chinese communists forced the brits' hand.

no doubt there were a lot of external pressures and unique circumstances which meant that hk never became democratic but the fact that it didn't, even though it was under british rule for a century and a half, makes you think that the brits don't live by a kind of 'democracy or death' creed.

[zac]

Fair comment Zac but you have an inflated opinion of "Democracy" and the role of "the people" in it. The ones bankrolling and promoting "democracy" unrest in HK are people like the media billionaire Jack Ma (and of course the US and Britain). He's part of a long line of rich and powerful "democrats" stretching from the French Revolution. Liberal Democracy is a construct of the bourgeoisie. The "people" are easily manipulated if one has control of the means of communication. Issy opined that privately owned media is better than State owned but if it's a monopoly, what's the difference?

i don't have an inflated opinion of, yes, 'democracy' but i do think it's the least shithouse system of government.

[Paddo Colt 61]

Your point is a good one Zac. Passing strange that the mania in HK re its lack of "democracy" has coincided with US animosity towards what it sees as a power rival in the region. Where were the dissidents in all of those non democratic years under colonial absolute rule right up to the late 90s?

Same goes for Taiwan which was, in 1949, a safe haven for the defeated and fleeing fascist KMT underwritten by the USA. Only recently has a kind of democracy emerged but certainly not one worth fighting over and even more so when the World, including Oz, recognises that it is a province of greater China.

The great irony is that in the USA , the South , after the Civil War, institutionalised "Jim Crow" to disenfranchise the ex slave majority in many states in order to prevent black majorities democratically taking government. The same thing is happening today in Republican states. So much for the sanctity of "Democracy" in other parts of the World. It's an egregious hypocritical con job that our lightweight MSM goes along with it.

[King Salvo]

Well just another reason you should immigrate then Comrade Paddo to one of your beloved bastions of democracy (China/Russia/North Korea) so you can live under those authoritarian and totalitarian regimes you so greatly admire.

No MSM either for you to rally against and no problems having to remember anything you say in any phones calls you make or what you posted on any of the government controlled social media sites(China/Russia) as it's all recorded - just ask the local internal surveillance office for a transcript of any of this.

mmm maybe best to take a suit case with you just in case your presence in required in a more secure place where your new found friends can keep an eye on you 24/7 - just for your safety of course

To somewhat quote Phil Gould though " Go now. Don’t let the door hit you on the arse on the way out."

You're just pissing in the wind