I think any amendment to the Taiwan relations act would go the other way.
What you should be asking is what programs or benefits does Taiwan get now that they might lose.
No . . . . the sentiment in Washington, D.C. is to give Taiwan more benefits.
Speaking of interesting federal programs that Taiwan might qualify for, here is another one –
INNOVATIVE BRIDGE RESEARCH AND CONSTRUCTION
STATUS: ACTIVE
APPROPRIATION CODES: QT9
FEDERAL PARTICIPATION: Up to 100 percent
PERIOD AVAILABLE: Until expended
FUND: Highway Trust Fund
FUND DISTRIBUTION METHOD: Allocations, Cooperative Agreements and Contracts
TYPE OF AUTHORITY: Contract
SUBJECT TO OBLIGATION LIMITATION: Yes
STATUTORY REFERENCE: 23 USC 503(b) added by Section 5103 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21, Public Law 105-178)
CFR REFERENCE: None
ELIGIBILITY: The program is to provide for the demonstration of innovative material technology application in the construction of bridges and other structures. The program has seven goals and emphasizes new materials to reduce maintenance and life-cycle costs.
The research portion of the program allows for grants to States, other Federal agencies, universities and colleges, private sector entities, and non-profit organizations to pay the Federal share of the cost of research and development, and technology transfer concerning innovative materials.
Under the construction portion, the program allows for cooperative agreements and contracts with the States to pay for the Federal share of the cost of bridge repair, rehabilitation, replacement, and new construction to demonstrate the application of innovative materials. The FHWA annually solicits candidates from State highway agencies. An FHWA panel determines whether candidate projects meet TEA-21 goals. Bridges on all public roads, including State and locally funded projects, are eligible. Additionally, funds may be used for preliminary engineering and the costs of evaluation of the innovative material performance over a reasonable time period.
BACKGROUND: Section 5001 (c)(2)(A) of the TEA-21, set aside $1 million for each of FYs 1998-2003 for the research portion of the Innovative Bridge Research and Construction Program. Section 5001 (c)(2)(B) authorized to be appropriated $10 million for FY 1998, $15 million for FY 1999, $17 million for FY 2000, and $20 million for FYs 2001-2003 for the construction portion of the Innovative Bridge Research and Construction Program.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Contact the FHWA Office of Bridge Technology (HIBT).
butcher boy,
No one ever made the claim that TI’er were very good or effective terrorist. If TI could pull themselves away from KTV and boycotting Chinese beer, then get some training from the CIA or IRA they might be more effective. But their intention still make them terrorist by definition, if not by action.
Yes when talking about future events it is best to qualify them in probable terms. Ever look into quantum mechanics, the whole subject describes the universe as the probability of sometime happening at a some place in time, with no certainty whatsoever. So one can make the case that there is no certainty of TI intentions, but the probably are very high they wish to be terrorist to the PRC.
I believe my position has been very clear. I think without serious consideration to the military threat PRC poses, any move towards
[quote=“ac_dropout”]The PRC side will undoubtedly get the
[quote=“ac_dropout”]
No one ever made the claim that TI’er were very good or effective terrorist… But their intention still make them terrorist by definition, if not by action.[/quote]
Which inention? The intention to solidify their independence? Surely this is what to you makes them TI’ers. You would have to show an intent to commit terrorist acts for their intention to make them terrorists, albeit innefective ones. You still haven’t shown this.
[quote=“ac_dropout”]
Ever look into quantum mechanics, the whole subject describes the universe as the probability of sometime happening at a some place in time, with no certainty whatsoever. So one can make the case that there is no certainty of TI intentions, but the probably are very high they wish to be terrorist to the PRC.[/quote] 
Well lets get Dr S Hawking in to solve the dispute. Ac your better than acid sometimes.
[quote=“ac_dropout”]I believe my position has been very clear. I think without serious consideration to the military threat PRC poses, any move towards
US Department of Agriculture
** News from USDA **
-
In January, 2004, Agriculture Secretary Ann M. Veneman announced that eGovernment initiatives would be a special focus of the U.S. Department of Agriculture in 2004. The USDA Customer Statement is part of this effort and brings to the farmer and rancher un-precedented online access to their business activities with USDA 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
-
In the Federal Register, NRCS announces publication of the National Animal Agriculture Conservation Framework, which lays out a blueprint for meeting the environmental stewardship challenges facing animal agriculture over the next 10 to 15 years.
-
Agriculture Secretary Veneman announced availability of $13.2 million in grants that will support the development of value-added agriculture business ventures and support President Bush’s energy plan to develop alternative sources of renewable energy.
butcher boy
Are you confirming the fact that you have “drop acid” during your life. How many tabs?
I believe that being mostly ethnically Chinese on the island would make the future reunification a more easy task. I also do believe the trends show PRC will have an overwhelming military presence compared to ROC in the near future.
I believe the duality of situation makes it more compelling to be pro-unification to avoid unnecessary bloodshed over the issue.
That’s funny most PRC people still find me to be a seperatist since I believe in “status quo with eventual reunification in the future” and “pro-3 links.”
From their view by supporting status quo I am in fact part of the group keeping ROC and PRC apart.
Whereas the pan-Green side find my optimistic views of the PRC rise to be annoying and my repeated call for our current government to focus on domestic issues like the PRC focusing on their domestic issues to be down right traitorous.
Chalk it up to Relativity I guess.
Nonsense. This falling back to ‘status quo’ is merely a defensive position you retreat to when pressed (and fail) to come up with solid historical or legal reasons for suggesting Taiwan is part of China, or some unsavory aspect of behaviour by your idols (whether the Chiangs / Soongs or current PRC leaders). When unopposed you revert to your ‘resistance is futile’, ‘pan-green is always wrong’ and ‘they stole the election’ agendas again.
Your ilk has already had a few decades to oppress the supporters of freedom and democracy, but with quite the opposite result. I doubt you’ll get a second chance.
I’ll ask you again, how many converts do you imagine you’ve made here?
hsiadogah,
I never stated those words. Why do you project those positions on me? Perhaps you need some time to introspect your own political position. Since I have clearly stated mine in no vague terms.
OooKaaay! Singapore’s population is more than 75% ethnic Chinese so after Taiwan, Singapore, you think? Of course, the situation is not the same, but don’t kid yourself.
Just because the people on both sides are ethnically similar does not mean that they necessarily share any other traits. Physical/genetic similarity does not necessarily engender Psychological/philosophical/cultural and in no way–in this specific case–political similarity.
Apples and Oranges a_c. Or in this case different types of oranges, Mandarins and Tangarines–they both can grow on the same stock if they are purposely grafted, but they are different strains, requiring different soil conditions, temperature, humidity, growing seasons, etc.
People here have a choice, and if it were not for the risk of attack, I believe they would have already chosen to pursue their destiny as an independent nation. IMO, all the Pro-reunification or status-quo proselytizers have realized that to be true, hence their desperation and their threats for 2020,etc.
I usually only use Singapore as an example of an independent state with mostly Chinese that do not reject their Chinese heritage.
So it is possible to achieve political independence without neo-Taiwanese ethnic concepts.
Of course political power is addictive I’m under no illusions that unless PRC takes drastic measures eventual unification is a just another stalling tactic. The only difference is the eventual unification argument doesn’t incite the PRC leadership as much as eventual independence argument.
US Food and Drug Administration
Center for Veterinary Medicine
fda.gov/cvm/aboutcvm/aboutcvm.html
The Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) regulates the manufacture and distribution of food additives and drugs that will be given to animals. These include animals from which human foods are derived, as well as food additives and drugs for pet (or companion) animals. CVM is responsible for regulating drugs, devices, and food additives given to, or used on, over one hundred million companion animals, plus millions of poultry, cattle, swine, and minor animal species. (Minor animal species include animals other than cattle, swine, chickens, turkeys, horses, dogs, and cats.)
The Center for Veterinary Medicine is a consumer protection organization. CVM fosters public and animal health by approving safe and effective products for animals and by enforcing other applicable provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and other authorities.
reject?
[quote=“ac_dropout”]I usually only use Singapore as an example of an independent state with mostly Chinese that do not reject their Chinese heritage.
So it is possible to achieve political independence without neo-Taiwanese ethnic concepts.
Of course political power is addictive I’m under no illusions that unless PRC takes drastic measures eventual unification is a just another stalling tactic. The only difference is the eventual unification argument doesn’t incite the PRC leadership as much as eventual independence argument.[/quote]
Reject? They are an independent nation with a seat on the UN. They have the option of rejecting or accepting whatever they like without the threat of being bombed to kingdome come.
People here are not in the same position–to state the obvious. They have a gun pointed at their heads and they are being told accept, or else, “resistance is futile.”
Eventual reunification or eventual idependence is the prerogative of the Taiwanese. The people of this nation have a choice.
Choice, a concept absent from the mind of a communist, is a democratic entitlement.
[quote]The people of this nation have a choice.
Choice, a concept absent from the mind of a communist, is a democratic entitlement.[/quote]
I guess the PRC will also exercise their right to reject the choice that ROC makes on the Strait Issue. So I guess agreeing not the agree will be the paradigm of quite some time.
After President Bush’s Second Inaugural Address on January 20, 2005, I gues there must be some way that the Taiwanese can apply for all types of subsidies to promote “liberty” in local politics …
President Bush stressed the importance of promoting liberty throughout the world, so I can’t imagine that Taiwan would be an exception …
Does anyone know the application procedure???
Then you must have a very limited imagination. I can think of at least a couple of reasons why Taiwan would be an “exception;” namely, the United States’ one China policy and the 600 or so missiles parked directly across from Taiwan.
Why would the 23rd province of the PRC qualify for US Federal Aid but not the other 22? Since Taiwan is part of the PRC, wouldn’t the first step be to ask the PRC for permission before even considering such an action?
I would imagine because US does not consider Taiwan to be the 23rd province of PRC. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the people who claim this are either brainwashed by PRC propaganda or ignorant of the issue or both.
The citizens of PRC have no right to reject the decision Taiwanese make regarding Taiwan. Of course, not being democratically-minded, they would think differently.
In any case, I find it unlikely the US will set up any sort of federal aid program for the Taiwanese since we can take care of ourselves in most areas.
[quote=“butcher boy”]ac
Who are these terrorists? Can you point to their terrorist acts? On what grounds are you calling them terrorists? (remember you refered to people here as ‘terrorists’ without ever justifying it so I’m sure everyone would be interested in your definition)
You know the drill, you need to back up your claims about people. You’ve still got a few others remaining to be backed up or retracted. As the saying goes ‘put up or shut up’. Have you got the balls for another round? :bouncy:[/quote]
While I’m hardly an apologist for AC, he’s absolutely right about this one.
There were indeed Puerto Rican pro-independence terrorists, though it was a long time ago (mostly 1950s):
1950 - Assasination attempt on President Truman. Puerto Rican nationalists kill one District of Columbia policeman during an attempted assasination of President Harry S. Truman outside of Blair House in Washington, D.C.
1954: Shooting in the U.S. House of Representatives. Five members of Congress are wounded by gunfire during an attack by Puerto Rican nationalists on the U.S. House of Representatives
cheers,
DB