just when you think someone may have learned not to shoot themselves in the foot!..
after (despite your selective cutting and pasting above ) I wrote the little hypothetical “what if” scenario about CSB based on the only argument you had offered up to that point, namely that Ma is unfit to lead Taiwan on the basis that he said “president Zhan” in an interview, you abandoned ship, changed your mind and said “he blew it on logic alone… the ‘president’ remark was icing…”…
as if an obviously bigoted opinion on Ma’s logic during the interview, from you, someone who’s proved that his capacity to grasp elementary propositional logic and debate is feeble at best, is somehow irrefutable fact… again, you’ve just highlighted your complete inability to back up your anti Ma rantings with anything more than unsubstantiated “because I say so…” opinion…
[quote=“plasmatron”]:lol: just when you think someone may have learned not to shoot themselves in the foot!..
after (despite your selective cutting and pasting above ) I wrote the little hypothetical “what if” scenario about CSB based on the only argument you had offered up to that point, namely that Ma is unfit to lead Taiwan on the basis that he said “president Zhan” in an interview, you abandoned ship, changed your mind and said “he blew it on logic alone… the ‘president’ remark was icing…”…
as if an obviously bigoted opinion on Ma’s logic during the interview, from you, someone who’s proved that his capacity to grasp elementary propositional logic and debate is feeble at best, is somehow irrefutable fact… again, you’ve just highlighted your complete inability to back up your anti Ma rantings with anything more than unsubstantiated “because I say so…” opinion… [/quote]
Isn’t this the face of the independence movement? Stop_Ma demonstrates it pretty well; allow him to continue…
[quote=“plasmatron”]:lol: just when you think someone may have learned not to shoot themselves in the foot!..
after (despite your selective cutting and pasting above ) I wrote the little hypothetical “what if” scenario about CSB based on the only argument you had offered up to that point, namely that Ma is unfit to lead Taiwan on the basis that he said “president Zhan” in an interview, you abandoned ship, changed your mind and said “he blew it on logic alone… the ‘president’ remark was icing…”…
as if an obviously bigoted opinion on Ma’s logic during the interview, from you, someone who’s proved that his capacity to grasp elementary propositional logic and debate is feeble at best, is somehow irrefutable fact… again, you’ve just highlighted your complete inability to back up your anti Ma rantings with anything more than unsubstantiated “because I say so…” opinion… [/quote]
Were you once a KMT propaganda editor, Plaz?
Since when is the “icing on the cake” comment a contradiction or evidence that I “changed my mind”?
I never EVER said that the “president” comment alone was indication that he was unfit to lead Taiwan.
You did.
And that’s why I called your comments “hysterical”.
you consistently offer your subjective opinion on Ma as fact… you offer your contrived and wholly unsubstantiated “feelings” on the issue as irrefutable evidence… you offer dull anecdotes and inferences based on nothing but your obvious personal dislike for Ma and actually think that they pass for valid and objective support for your vitriolic anti Ma outbursts…
you’ve never managed to muster a single concrete premise to support your “arguments” other than what boils down to “just because…”… and yet somehow you still post nonsense like this:
You whine that I don’t engage in meaningful debate and then you cut a comment of mine out of context, followed by a bit of unfounded slander. I then point out the context of that comment to refute your absurd notion that I don’t engage in debate and you whine some more.
A suggestion – if you can’t handle your own disingenuous tactics, then stop employing them.
Come on ac, I don’t think anything on either side of this interview could be called ‘masterful’. Ma could have absolutely slaughtered this guy but I saw nothing beyond the same stuff we’ve all heard in Taiwan a million times and a cheap swipe at the interviewer’s cultural knowledge.
[quote=“ac_dropout”]I think the interviewer had bigger fish to fry than trying to explain the convoluted veto of the referrendum.
The big money question was trying to get the KMT to look like they were in conspiring with the CPP against the DPP. Unfortunately, for TI supporters, he did not succeed and Ma masterfully used the “reality of Taiwan” card.[/quote]
Read your first paragraph. Then read your last paragraph. The debate over the referendum mechanics seems to me a very important factor in deciding majority opinion. Hence my disappointment that Ma was given free reign to spin the ‘veto’ line.
[quote]
Ma also most got caught up towards the end of the interview in why wasn’t his position more antagonistic towards the PRC, like most of the West. But once again saved himself with the “majority on Taiwan support Status Quo” with a little “silly TV personality cannot comprehend Status Quo.”[/quote]
With all said and done, I reiterate my belief that this whole thing was rather silly and embarrassing (more on the BBC’s part than anything). Not sure why supporters on either side made such a fuss and tried their damndest to spin it into a ‘Ma’s so great!’ / ‘that bastard lying Ma!’ tirade.
But the whole story behind the referrendum makes the DPP look like conniving politicians taking advantage of loopholes in the law. The whole referredum was based on “immediate threat” from the PRC. It’s been almost 2 years now and nothings happened.
Makes one question if the DPP have the ability to guage what is an immediate threat in reality.
llary,
The BBC interviewer deserves an international journalism award for his in-depth and balance coverage of Ma. If such an accolade doesn’t exist they should invent one just of that interview.
Based on that interview alone, Ma deserves a Noble Peace Prize.
Its all in good sport. I would be a loon to believe half the stuff I write here.
it was void with the help of an undemocratic voting method. Not enough people participated. It was not “vetoed” in any sense of the word.
The long answer:
The KMT demanded that there would have to be 2 ballot boxes during the 2004 vote. One box and ballot for the presidential election and one box and ballot for the referendum. This allowed them to hi-jack the referendum by issuing a directive to their supporters to not vote in the referendum. Since one could determine if one had voted in the referendum by simply watching the people vote, anyone who wanted to break the party directive would have to think twice about it.
It broke the democratic principle of anonymity when voting.
At least one major international democratic rights organization made note of this stunt.
I believe, of those who voted, the results were 90% in favour.
It is unethical in a democratic society to have a referrendum vote and an office election vote at the same time. Most mature democracies ban this type voting procedures, since campaigns can take advantage of the issue.
Long response to long reply"
If your conjecture is true, that the referendum was voided because KMT party members were intimidated into not participation in the referendum ballot, that would mean over half of the voting population were KMT members. Because less than half of the voting population participated in the referendum, whereby voiding the process.
However, using this fact, many conspiracy supporters claim that CSB could not have won the majority of the votes on Taiwan. Because if over half the population did not support CSB personal referendum, they would not have voted for CSB either.
Hence, many still feel Lien Chan might been the real winner of the election that night.
It is unethical in a democratic society to have a referrendum vote and an office election vote at the same time. Most mature democracies ban this type voting procedures, since campaigns can take advantage of the issue.
[/quote]
Bullshit. It happens all of the time. In fact, I voted myself in Canada under these circumstances. Except, of course, there was only one ballot box.
[quote]Long response to long reply"
If your conjecture is true, that the referendum was voided because KMT party members were intimidated into not participation in the referendum ballot, that would mean over half of the voting population were KMT members. Because less than half of the voting population participated in the referendum, whereby voiding the process.[/quote]
You’re math skills are questionable, AC.
Votes cast in the referendum:
7,452,340
Votes cast in the election for president:
13,251,719
So, you see, nearly 57% of the voters cast ballots in the referendum.
just when you think someone may have learned not to shoot themselves in the foot!..
) I wrote the little hypothetical “what if” scenario about CSB based on the only argument you had offered up to that point, namely that Ma is unfit to lead Taiwan on the basis that he said “president Zhan” in an interview, you abandoned ship, changed your mind and said “he blew it on logic alone… the ‘president’ remark was icing…”… 
) I wrote the little hypothetical “what if” scenario about CSB based on the only argument you had offered up to that point, namely that Ma is unfit to lead Taiwan on the basis that he said “president Zhan” in an interview, you abandoned ship, changed your mind and said “he blew it on logic alone… the ‘president’ remark was icing…”… 
[/quote]
