More like an entertainer/clown. Gets his jollies out of performing some trick in reward for applause from an admiring audience.
That’s no way to speak about the Iron Lady 
Britain was sure better with her under the helm that it would have been under Callaghan, Foot, or Kinnock. She’s also a hell of a lot better than the fuckwits they have in both parties now (Brown or Cameron).
Then why did they fight the Japanese? The generation who lived and fought during WW 2 would probably disagree.
That’s no way to speak about the Iron Lady Britain was sure better with her under the helm that it would have been under Callaghan, Foot, or Kinnock. She’s also a hell of a lot better than the fuckwits they have in both parties now (Brown or Cameron).[/quote]
Don’t be stupid.
That’s no way to speak about the Iron Lady Britain was sure better with her under the helm that it would have been under Callaghan, Foot, or Kinnock. She’s also a hell of a lot better than the fuckwits they have in both parties now (Brown or Cameron).[/quote]
Yeah, Thatcher was like our Reagan. Cameron is like our loser McCain.
That’s no way to speak about the Iron Lady Britain was sure better with her under the helm that it would have been under Callaghan, Foot, or Kinnock. She’s also a hell of a lot better than the fuckwits they have in both parties now (Brown or Cameron).[/quote]
Yeah, Thatcher was like our Reagan. Cameron is like our loser McCain.[/quote]
Yep, just the same, yet completely different. Why do so many Americans need equivalencies and translations for everything?
You know those Thai t-shirts saying Same Same But Different, well in the longer versions they say: “Same Same, yet completely different. Why do so many Americans need equivalencies and translations for everything?”
HG
You know those Thai t-shirts saying Same Same But Different, well in the longer versions they say: “Same Same, yet completely different. Why do so many Americans need equivalencies and translations for everything?”
HG[/quote]
Yeah, I edited. Still waiting to get paid.
And its not “Thatcher.” Its “That Fucking Woman.”
-
Let’s not give him any more or less mind because he is a celebrity.
-
Agree with others, he’s paying lip service to the CCP when everyone knows he profited under British rule.
-
In a larger sense, his comments represents:
a. a lingering fear of the era of China’s humiliation and weakness in the dying days of the Qing. Many Chinese, even the so-called proles that Chan is talking about, to varying degrees, would prefer stability over chaos at the cost of “some freedom” (but also perhaps because they know no other alternative… see point below)
b. a lingering failure to free himself of China’s dynastic past and its effect on Chinese social structure. Think Chinese paternalism here in business, in social networks, in family, etc. Conversely, there is a lingering anti-western sentiment (but also opportunistic and pragmatic - we’ll take what we can use) against “western ideas” e.g. democracy.
- This is nothing new, not in Asia, not in Europe. People said this about the Germans, and then the Eastern Europeans with racially-tinged ideas that “Germans” were incapable of democracy, or “Slavs” and then “Japs” blah blah.
Oddly, at the local level, I feel Chinese are much freer to do things than in the west. Politics of course is another issue.
IMO, the road to democracy requires more education and a shift in thinking about the role of the so-called proles. I mean, if India, with its caste system and other social inquities, has democracy, and isn’t on the verge of anarchy (politically I mean), then why can’t China?
I have to agree with him, if Chinese kids are raised anything like Taiwanese kids.
These kids here really have every movement controlled by their parents. I imagine when they get a tiny bit of freedom they don’t know what to do with it. Their upbringing doesn’t prepare them for responsibility at all.
I like democracy , but the kids here are not adequequately prepared by their parents to handle any degree of independence.
[quote=“Chuanzao El Ale Destroyer”]I have to agree with him, if Chinese kids are raised anything like Taiwanese kids.
These kids here really have every movement controlled by their parents. I imagine when they get a tiny bit of freedom they don’t know what to do with it. Their upbringing doesn’t prepare them for responsibility at all.
I like democracy , but the kids here are not adequequately prepared by their parents to handle any degree of independence.[/quote]
Chan says Chinese need to be controlled. Sounds like you think kids here are controlled. What exactly are you agreeing with? Chan is making the opposite observation you are. 
Maybe he obsevered Taiwan’s president getting shot, Taiwan’s president going to jail over corruption and came to the conclusion not only was Taiwan’s politics the biggest joke in the universe, but with a little more “control” all that could have been avoided.
Maybe if India stop using PRC as an economic benchmark, perhaps it would lend more credibility to their political system.
It’s pretty hard to use a weaker, poorer, or a country that is mired in the “Great Recession” as an example of why PRC should adopt their political system at all.
Is it no wonder the PRC over the last 6 months have been saying “Practice what we preach” at various summit meeting.
Actually, China seems more and more closer to Latin America: deification of glorious leaders, glorifying the revolution while revolutionaries turned into fat cats, exploitation of people and resources based on nepotism and stratification of caste society tighter than during the monarchy times, imperial style of governance, complete manipulation of media, ideological control of masses -Catholic church there, nationalism here-, money laundry at large scale -there drug money, here arms and other diversified investments, etc… Does this seems like a recipe for success, long term success?
My bets are still on India. Yes, many imperfection, and danger of real international terrorist groups -not subversives labeled as such- but far more stable banking and political systems to withstand any storm.
As far as I’ve seen from the press, the ones more pissed off at Chen’s words are the Chinese. “We are not pets”, a legislator said. Or as the panel discussion said yesterday: if all Chinese must be controlled, then CCP big guns are not human, as if they were, they would need to be controlled, too.
All dinasties fall, Their time will come, and they too will come running to Taiwan, the renegade province, to hide. So it has been for the last 400 years, so it will be. Based on current “logic”, this statement would make sense, don’t you think?
ps.
and on a nasty note, I’ve discovered why Jackie is so pissed off. In spite of his eyelid job, he still has not been accepted by teh Hollywood establishment. Wonder why.
[quote=“ac_dropout”]Maybe he obsevered Taiwan’s president getting shot, Taiwan’s president going to jail over corruption and came to the conclusion not only was Taiwan’s politics the biggest joke in the universe, but with a little more “control” all that could have been avoided.
Maybe if India stop using PRC as an economic benchmark, perhaps it would lend more credibility to their political system.
It’s pretty hard to use a weaker, poorer, or a country that is mired in the “Great Recession” as an example of why PRC should adopt their political system at all.
Is it no wonder the PRC over the last 6 months have been saying “Practice what we preach” at various summit meeting.[/quote]
That definitely sounds more like something someone from China - or who was very pro-Chinese - would write than anything I have heard in Taiwan, with the exception of some of the kookier editorial writers at the China Post. Hey AC, Anti-CNN is planning to open an English-language site for global audiences soon. Maybe you could work for them? You’d fit right in with your Han brothers.
Taipei Times article that says he’s not welcome for the deaflympics (didn’t know he was hard of hearing).
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2009/04/21/2003441616
but head says they won’t change the spokesperson. Wouldn’t people protest outside the events he was at, leading to him saying, “See…I told you this place was chaotic?”
Marcus
http://www.waakao.com
Why is it only the DPP are theatening the funding of the deaflympics over Jackie’s comment? Could it be they are the ones causing the chaos.
The most vocal KMT member just refers to Jackie as a has-been. That seems more like an appropriate response to Jackie’s comments.
At least they don’t show Rush Hour on TV every day anymore. Now if we could only get Stephen Segall to insult Taiwan.
Yes. Both were terrible leaders.
Yes. Both were terrible leaders.[/quote]
They were good leaders. Just bad people.