Ma says USA is Gullible

Politics Taiwan Politics
41

Gee, who could possibly have injured those ‘idiot’ greens? Can’t possibly think of anyone… They must have done it to themselves!Ha ha! You and ac_dropout are just a laugh riot! (Riot, get it!) Pan-blue violence is funny! Not like bad TI violence. [/quote]

I think you are confused. I didn’t say pan-Blues did not participate. I said pan-Greens were the ones with weapons and attacking, a fact that is largely borne out by examining the reports and photographs. If you come at me with a pointy bamboo pole or knife, and I had the ability, I’d kick in your balls to make you remember it, too.

[quote=“dj_jed”]In any case, even if there really WERE more green thugs than blue present that day, it doesn’t change my point. Unlike you, I’m not assigning all blame to one side, and absolving the other. I’ll call a thug a thug. Will you?

Really, are you simply ignorant or completely disingenuous here? Are you unaware that New Party leaders vowed “war” on the TSU? That they threatened to show up with gravel trucks and bulldozers,and made other inflammatory quotes reported in various media? Were present at the scene with people named by police as gangsters?

“Insinuating” triad involvement? I think they DOCUMENTED it! They certainly named specific names and affiliations…and the police acted on it. Admittedly, the sources here are biased. But can this all be a complete fabrication? [/quote]

The answer is obvious: Yes. As long as you continue to cite TP Times, you might as well be citing your bunhole. As shown here, the TP Times fabricates complete paragraphs – a bit worse than simply being biased, I’d say.
forumosa.com/taiwan/viewtopi … 668#515668

And what of the reports of “threats” and “vows” and “thug histories” of PFP and Bamboo Union anyway. If these weren’t insinuations, as I called them, you’d come up with something substantive. Were any charges filed? Was anybody convicted? If not, you’ve got nothing but TP Times defecation product and victim-faking bluff from green idiots, who in fact took weapons to the airport to fight (what were they hoping to accomplish? why haven’t you answered this?). Par for the course.

I said nothing of the sort about what is worth mentioning or what is right or what is wrong. I said, and I repeat, election protests, even violence, happen elsewhere in the world, especially in close and contested cases. On the other hand, supporters of the party in power bringing weapons into an airport to (do what?) to a transiting opposition party leader is absurd and only happens in Taiwan. I’ll even wager that nothing of the sort has happened elsewhere in the world. Ever. You simply cannot dispute that.

I never supported the pan-Blue post-election violence. This whole sub-discussion started just by pointing out this airport thing was for all practical purposes the doings of the greens, which is true. There is no hypocrisy at all.

42

Actually, you’re only saying that now. Earlier you said it was “all greens” and ac_dropout said they were confused and hit themselves. In any case, your characterization of the events is still biased and misleading. The presence of other groups of armed people that went there purposely to taunt, confront and/or attack the green protesters changes the picture quite a bit! Two sides went there to have a fight, and that’s what they got.

It’s even possible that blue attackers deliberately provoked the greens, knowing it would trigger a messy reaction by the larger group that would discredit them, especially after the news was reported through a pan-Blue dominated media. (This is, of course, pure speculation)

My bunghole says at least it’s better than the other two, and you gotta take what you can get,…

Yok Mu-ming’s public statements were reported in other media, they weren’t invented by the Taipei Times.

Vicious attacks by a group of armed men in black clothes were videotaped and widely reported by various journalists, not only by the victims. This wasn’t invented by the Taipei Times.

The fact that a larger number of armed green supporters were injured, and injured more seriously, supports the claim that they were attacked by another group that was 1) better armed and 2) better at fighting. Such as (but not necessarily) gangsters. Your alternative explanation, that ordinary, law-abiding Lien Chan supporters leapt into action, disarmed the green thugs with their bare hands and turned their own weapons against them somehow strikes me as less plausible.

Yes, apparently. The articles quote police naming suspects ARRESTED in connection with fighting at the airport. Namely Chu Chia-hsun (朱家訓) and his ex-wife, Wang Lan (王蘭). Surely this was reported elsewhere…if you catch the Taipei Times inventing the basic factual claim of a straightforward news story I’d be interested to know.

The point is the additional evidence that another side was involved in fomenting violence. Other insinuations in the article are really irrelevant here. (i.e. their alleged membership in a gang and it’s alleged ties to the KMT.) I do find it interesting that the article claims that Chu Chia-hsun was arrested in 2004 in connection with violence at the pan-Blue election protests. I remember media reports at the time attributing attacks on police to Bamboo Union gangsters. While proving nothing, it shows that allegations of pro-blue gang violence are not coming merely from the TSU.

By the way, I wish you guys had such high standards of evidence when you spread dirt and hearsay about the greens.

How should I know what they wanted to accomplish? Maybe some of them had always dreamed of being the first guy to bean Lien Chan with a sugar cane stalk. Maybe others just wanted to scare him a little. Maybe some had paranoid delusions of persecution by the Bamboo Union gang, fueled by their leaders, and felt they needed weapons for self-defense. (Who knew they were right?) The point is their actions were wrong if not criminal. They should have been stopped by the several thousand police present. They should have been disarmed and if necessary arrested. Lawmakers involved in fighting should be expelled from their parties.

Maybe so. But to be fair, opposition party leaders who travel to the capital of an overtly hostile (& undemocratic) power and presume to make deals with its leaders, all with the express intent of undermining and isolating their own President (whom they refuse to recognize) are also quite absurd. And arguably treasonous.

Again, the available evidence indicates a more complicated situation.You’re taking an arguable premise and assuming it’s established truth. Through constant repetition and disregard of all contradictory evidence the public is misled.

Here’s something to think about. When the blues were venting their displeasure with the election, it’s a fact that pan-Green leaders urged their followers to stay away and CSB scaled back inauguration festivities. When mob violence occurred, it was between blues and police. In this case, with the TSU announcing a protest of Lien Chan’s trip, Why couldn’t the blue side show similar restraint? The statements of Yok Mu-ming and other New Party leaders instead show deliberate confrontation. The job of protecting Lien Chan belonged to proper authorities, not a freelance mob.

And the two sides don’t compare in their responses either:

DPP apologizes for airport violence

After pan-Blue disorder:
PFP legislators call Ma ` dumb,’
Lien Chan denied all responsibility for violence at a rally he had just addressed.

43

However, in the comparison given, Blue protestor are demostrating against a system they percieved to be unfair. They are not attacking CSB or his family directly.

Whereas in the whole CKS airport incident, Green protestors are attacking an individual and not the system. Even the roads leading to the airport had crazed individuals trying to ram the motorcade.

How can green supporters even use the word treason, when their side has a party that doesn’t even believe in the constitution of the ROC? Sounds quite ironic.

Not to mention Lien Chan visit has been cited over and over again as a key event reducing tenson across the strait. Is it treason for an individual ROC citizen to try to prevent war?

So one cannot give these events equal weight. In one event a groups protest the system over the incidents and results of an election. In another event a groups takes it upon themselves to try and suspend the civil rights of an individual ROC citizen.

44

Yeah – a system called a “democracy”.

45

Boy, are you gullible

46

Lien was never attacked. The taxi drivers drove alongside the motorcade and unfurled banners. It was reckless and illegal and they were arrested. But that doesn’t allow you to say they intended to “ram the motorcade.”

What are you referring to? Doesn’t the DPP honor the current constitution, even while CSB proposes replacing it through established legal procedures? It seems pretty clear that the greens will not be able to carry this out on their own anyway.

I think people can be forgiven for doubting the absolute purity of his motives. He essentially pledged to work with the CCP to isolate and undermine the DPP in the 5-point consensus. He encouraged China to continue boycotting talks with the legitimate government.

[quote] So one cannot give these events equal weight. In one event a groups protest the system over the incidents and results of an election.
In another event a groups takes it upon themselves to try and suspend the civil rights of an individual ROC citizen.[/quote]

That’s merely your characterization of what they were trying to do. In any case, no responsible person would allow them to do that.

47

I don’t really mind that you’re “clarifying” what happened at the airport with your very puritan interpretations. I think you’ve got a point: nobody actually tried to physically ram the motorcade, and the current DPP administration has met the legal obligations of the ROC Constitution.

I have to snicker at this quick change of tone. If we take the same strict interpretation of the facts of the case, how can you claim the above?

“Essentially” pledged to isolate the DPP? He “encouraged” China to boycott talks with the legitimate government? How so? Was the DPP named or mentioned in the 5-point consensus? Was the ROC government named in the 5-point consensus?

Lien Chan expressed his willingness to work with the CPC on matters of shared interest. I don’t remember anything being written about the boycotting of anyone else also willing to work on matters of shared interests.

48

If it wasn’t for his private escort, I’m sure that’s what these people wanted to do that day.

Setting up road blocks, bringing weapons into the airport, their intentions were quite clear. To impede the civil rights of 1 ROC citizen.

You cannot say that of the 319 riot. Those rioters were against the system, not CSB individually.

49

His visit was an obvious encouragement for China to continue its policy of avoiding contact with the government. There’s a circle of mutually reinforcing actions here: China wants blues to replace greens, China meets Lien & Soong, refuses to meet CSB government, the pan-Blues make this a campaign issue against CSB, etc.

No, of course he didn’t specify the DPP by name - that would be far too blatant. Working together to isolate “Taiwan independence” doesn’t cover opposing the DPP and defeating it in elections? In my opinion, he should fight Taiwan independence at home in Taiwan! Without the CCPs help!

50

I believe TI is the common denominator that both the KMT and CCP are against. Other than that the KMT and CCP differ on most of the key issues.

If there was a moderate DPP candidate that was influential in the DPP, who opposed TI, I’m pretty sure they would have been welcomed on the mainland as well.

If the DPP want to be relevant in Taiwan politics in the near future, they best redefine TI asap.

The KMT definition of “TI” is the “1992 consensus”

Does the pan-Green have anything to offer Taiwan besides TI?

51

The issue is that Taiwan shouldn’t have to deal with China, especially with visits that essentially kowtow to them. Lien Chan ran to China and then agreed to China’s side of the ‘1992 Consensus’, turning it from a consensus into a submissive white flag. He essentially was saying that the KMT opposes TI and will unilaterally go for unification, regardless of the will of the people. Liens actions proved that the KMT rather unify with China at the cost of Taiwans sovereignty than submit to a Pan Green dominated government. Idiocy? Perhaps.

I understand that Dropout is just upset that the Pan blues don’t have presidency and the rest of the government. I mean besides mocking Taiwan’s democracy has he done anything for Taiwan? Brought some business to Taiwan? How about doing any charity work?

I’m starting to believe from Dropout’s comments, that he’d prefer we return to Martial Law than the “mess we have now”.

In addition, isn’t it embarassing to see the Pan Blues lose most of the upper rungs government except the LY? A system they setup themselves and they can’t even win over completely now versus a rather young, poor, and weak party. Thats like a college junior co-founding a club but losing his bid for presidency to a freshman.

52

And more specially, where is the real politics?
Why doesn’t Ma talk about the incredibly bad transit system from Taipei (a part from the MRT)? Why doesn’t Ma talk about giving people sidewalks? Why doesn’t Ma talk about things that really matter to people than just this noncense.

Everyone knows he wants the “status quo” to maintain, ok, no point to say it anymore. But please, the “modus vivendi” of people in Taiwan is rather low… why isn’t he doing something about that? What are his proposals on that? Why can’t he focus in being the Taipei City Mayor instead of worrying with China? For all the people who are paying his sallary, he should be more responsible in his job, and not spending all the time abraod talking of something everyone knows.

53

ShrimpCrackers,

Do you have any evidence that Lien agreed to PRC interpretation of the 1992 consensus?

mr_boogie,

Being the front runner as the KMT presidential candidate he has to have broad appeal, even abroad. Now if CSB was doing his job of running the country and developing a functioning relationship with the PRC, perhaps he could have stolen Ma thunder.

At last TI have no one to blame but themselves for the way things are developing now.

54

Then if Ma is the whatever of KMT, he should quit his job as Taipei Mayor and save the public coffins…

And someone from the KMT should be running this town properly

55

Yes, because Ma has been such a terrible mayor. Taipei was a real city before Ma came in with his stupid recycling policies, sidewalk revamping, and that useless MRT system. It was much better when everyone had to ride scooters or take buses, and the old sidewalks were much better for parking them on.

56

well, according to figures from UBS, Taipei is the 29th most expensive city in the world to live http://www.citymayors.com/economics/expensive_cities2.html , the 33th city where people win more http://www.citymayors.com/economics/richest_cities.html, but…

It doesn’t show up in the 55 best cities to live http://www.citymayors.com/features/quality_survey.html.

And if you continue reading and look for the “prices and earnings” repot from UBS http://www.ubs.com/1/e/ubs_ch/wealth_mgmt_ch/research.html and , the prices in Taipei went from 73% of what they would cost in Zurich (cost of a basket of 111 goods and services) to 66.7%. Also, wage levels went down from 32.3% to 30.3% (in gross sallary, net is at 33.3%).
If you consider a city like Lisbon where the wages are lower (25.6% gross and 27.2% net) but still makes it to be 53th in the world ranking of quality of life, wouldn’t you think that something is missing here? Or maybe Singapore (24.9% and 26.2%) but still get to have a living standard above New York.