TAIWAN: 'Scum of the nation' report sparks Lu's ire

[ludahai]

Semantics you have a double standard.

I love how you try to cover up your ignorance of basic principles of international law with your arrogance. Answer these two simple questions, if you dare:

1. Which internationally recognized state had sovereignty over the east coast of North America in the 16th century?
2. Which internationally recognized state had sovereignty over Taiwan at the beginning of 1945.

If you can answer these questions with any modicum of intellectual honesty, you will then reveal the basic difference between these two situations from the viewpoint of public international law.

The only violation is that of your prescription. The locals are only the wackos down there in the south that continue despite the realities to support a pseudo independence.

Funny considering that you don't even know what prescription is!

:lamo more ignorance. You leave out many key points, ie, hmm what would there be any need of a conclusion of the sino-french war to be conclusive of anything? More blatant hatred for my culture.

What, claiming things that don't belong to you and revising history is your culture? Well, if this IS your culture, you are darn right I have a blantent hatred for it. Again, the French gained its rights in northern Vietnam through the Treaty of Hue, NOT as a result of the Sino-French War. Furthermore, I have cited Chinese, Japanese , Korean, and Western HISTORIANS who disagree with your characterizations of China's relations with Korea and Vietnam in the 19th century.

Funny, why cite what it was around 3 years ago, what was it before that? What was it around oh I don't know 2000? Come on you're going to need to do better than that. A stock market that was in the 10,000's now fallen to 4000 and recovering only in the course of 6 years is not a good economy given what it already was. Just plz stop with the stupid lawyers act of dishonestly leaving out certain key elements of the entire picture.

The Taiwan Stock exchange reached 10,000 in late 1997 before the Asian Economic flu (which originated in Thailand) brought down the index to below 6000 in 1999. I am sure that was President Chen's fault. Oh yeah, he wasn't president until May of 2000. It did rebound back to about 10,000 briefly in early 2000. However, I think you are ignoring a very important element that occurred in 2000 and 2001, the bursting of the high tech bubble that resulted in the collapse of technology shares. The TaiEx is a tech-heavy index, so of course it took a hit. Today, Taiwan's economy is solid and competitive. It also has a broader base than it did in the crash day of the dot com bubble. Do some research and check the performance of other tech-heavy indices in the same time period!

Good for you, you cited some sources, I also cited sources that supported my position. The linguists are in conflict with each other - hence back to the accepted position, you need to have a differed written language to be a different dialect. What you cited are merely varied accents. I suppose you think that southeastern US vs New England English are different dialects? You're like one of thos ignorant high school kids here in the US asking a English exchange student - so what language do you speak in England?

You cited A SINGLE source, and not the most reliable. You cited Wikipedia, a site generally managed and written by amateurs. I cited THREE sources written by professionals. I cited two linguistics texts and a Britainnica definition. I think that trumps your sources. The accepted position among lingusts is that if the two patterns of speech are mutually intelligible, they are dialects of the same language. If they are mutually unintelligible, they are distinct languages. Your insults and name calling aren't going to change the fact that I actually know what I am talking about. New England ENglish, Southern English, London English are all DIALECTS of the same language. They are all mutually intelligible. Shanghainese, Cantonese, Mandarin are all separate languages within the same Sinitic language family. THIS is in accordance with the accepted definition of language and dialect by linguists. Check a linguistics text sometime!

Now you're lying. Minna is what is spoken as the "Taiwanese" (the other being Hakka). Now I'm more than certain that you've absolutely no idea what the hell you are talking about. You have a little understanding more so than most foreigners but you only see it through your own western interpretation.

I am not lying. Minnan spoken in Fujian and Minnan (Taiwanese) spoken in Taiwan are NOT identical, just as NEw England English and British English are NOT identical. Are they dialects of the same language (Minnan)? Yes, because they are mutually intelligible, but they are not identical. Heck, there are variations of the language even here in Taiwan! Please, substitute your ignorance of basic principles of linguistics and international law with a little reading of BOOKS, not Wikipedia.

See now you're lying. I've cited sources that you chose to ignore go ahead, go back and read my posts.

I have cited professional sources, you made a single citation to Wikipedia. WHat a joke. Why don't you check the scholarly sources I have cited.

Whether you like it or not. I don't give a half *** where geographically you live, the rhetoric that you spew is indifferent from that of the southern wack jobs and you eat up the crap the DPP spews without a second thought because of your blind neocon hatred for anything namely chinese.

Except that you can't intellectually challenge it. BEsides, I have held to the position of Taiwanese self-determination ever since I completed my master's thesis on this topic more than ten years ago, long before I ever took up residence in Taiwan. Nice attempt at creating yet another strawman. Along with your others, it is now engulfed in flames.

I'm sorry where have I even begun to engage you? I haven't wasted my time in trying to present anything that I haven't already. The points that you've brought up here have long since been debunked by me in earlier threads you just keep bring up the old stuff like a broken record. It's like stinger and tot claiming the saddam and AQ ties you simply refuse to accept the realities.

You haven't debunked anything. I have cited SCHOLARLY works, while you stick with Wikipedia. I present facts, you present your ignorant opinions. PLease get yourself an education.

You claim that ROC has no rule over Taiwan. Fine, next time you fly out of the country tell that to the customs agents when they ask you for your passport. Reality check completely debunks all your ridiculous lies.

Again, you completely mischaracterize my argument. I said that there was no LEGAL basis for the transfer of sovereignty, I did not say that they did not contiune to exercise control. The reality is, most Taiwanese do NOT consider themselves part of China. Sooner or later, the government here will change the name of this country. You no longer see ROC on the stamps of this country, they all say Taiwan now. That is the reality that you have to deal with. China doesn't control this island, the Taiwanese people do and once the will of the Taiwanese people is reflected by the government, there will be a reality you will have to deal with.

 

[jfuh]

:roll: All this garbage, fine, I'll humor you and take this one a bit more seriously than I have the last couple pages.

I love how you try to cover up your ignorance of basic principles of international law with your arrogance. Answer these two simple questions, if you dare:

1. Which internationally recognized state had sovereignty over the east coast of North America in the 16th century?
2. Which internationally recognized state had sovereignty over Taiwan at the beginning of 1945.

If you can answer these questions with any modicum of intellectual honesty, you will then reveal the basic difference between these two situations from the viewpoint of public international law.

Hmmm, 16th century vs 20th century, why is that Lu? Dishonesty at it's worst. I already kicked your *** up and down the wall with this one. the ROC is the rightful successor governmental entity to the Qing Empire; and reclaimed Taiwan after being stolen through force by Japan after surrender. It was part of the cease fire agreement signed on the battleship Missouri and was recognized internationally as such.
Were it not so, you would not be living in a Free Taiwan - like I said, you want to question ROC sovereignty? When you leave the country next time, tell the customs agent that the ROC has no authority and that the stamp of immigration is illegal. Tell Chen that his presidency is illegal and in total violation of international law. Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of military personnel who've died defending Taiwan from the onslaught of the mainland red army that they have no right to be defending Taiwan. You've nothing but radicalist ideology; cooking up anything just so as to distance as far as possible any ties between Taiwan and the mainland - pathetic.

Funny considering that you don't even know what prescription is

Funny considering it's an irrelevant point in the face of reality.

What, claiming things that don't belong to you and revising history is your culture? Well, if this IS your culture, you are darn right I have a blantent hatred for it. Again, the French gained its rights in northern Vietnam through the Treaty of Hue, NOT as a result of the Sino-French War. Furthermore, I have cited Chinese, Japanese , Korean, and Western HISTORIANS who disagree with your characterizations of China's relations with Korea and Vietnam in the 19th century.

Hahahahaha, let's dial back a bit further because you're history lacks, typical of those that the facts all get out.
However I haven't been all out honest myself either in my wish to avoid getting into a real discussion. So let me clarify. Vietnam and Korea were both [FONT=新細明體][FONT=&#27161]籓屬國. Froeign nations are not allowed to directly negotiate, ally or do business with such territories without going through China first. France, during internal strife in China during 1862 signed the first treaty of Saigon then reconfirmed this treaty with what you called the Treaty of Hui and finally leading to the second treaty of Saigon reaffirming all previous treaties and gainig full diplomatic power in Vietnam. Even though, all such treaties were to be approved by China first - Vietnam as a [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=新細明體][FONT=&#27161]籓屬國 of China was in no position to negotiate directly with France. Full diplomatic and freedom of business was insufficient for the French, the French wanted to claim colonial rule over Vietnam and declared on behalf of Vietnam separation from China. Of course this being unacceptable to China leading finally to the Sino-Franco war. Your former citations said nothing of these matters. FOr vietnam it was simply the neighbor to the south, which says zip about the status of Vietnam under China. Then the other reference between Korea and China merely stated that China and Japan were to be notified of attack. Yet, Korea was under the same conditions with China as Vietnam - in fact, so was Japan. Hence; my claims are not false. As historically China was in the position to negotiate on behalf as well as provide for the protection of these regions and these regions were required to pay prize to the central government of China. If you were to read some untranslated literature on these matters and actually comprehend what is written you would understand this. I gather from what I see your arguments presented here that you read the translated literature to which quite literally, much of the significance is lost in translation.
[/FONT][/FONT]

The Taiwan Stock exchange reached 10,000 in late 1997 before the Asian Economic flu (which originated in Thailand) brought down the index to below 6000 in 1999. I am sure that was President Chen's fault. Oh yeah, he wasn't president until May of 2000. It did rebound back to about 10,000 briefly in early 2000. However, I think you are ignoring a very important element that occurred in 2000 and 2001, the bursting of the high tech bubble that resulted in the collapse of technology shares. The TaiEx is a tech-heavy index, so of course it took a hit. Today, Taiwan's economy is solid and competitive. It also has a broader base than it did in the crash day of the dot com bubble. Do some research and check the performance of other tech-heavy indices in the same time period!

Hold on here, first let me give you credit where credit is deserved, for the first time since this thread you've finally been honest about something. A crash in the market in 97 and rebound back in 2000. This even admist the global slow down of economies after the dot com burst in 98. So, the Taiwan stock exchange plummeted from 10,000 to 6000 within 2 years and then in early 2000 shot back up to 10,000. And tell me, what exactly happened in the year after Chen took office and where is that mark today? Has the market index ever hit back to 10,000 ever?
It's interesting how you have neglected this small and essential detail.

You cited A SINGLE source, and not the most reliable. You cited Wikipedia, a site generally managed and written by amateurs. I cited THREE sources written by professionals. I cited two linguistics texts and a Britainnica definition. I think that trumps your sources. The accepted position among lingusts is that if the two patterns of speech are mutually intelligible, they are dialects of the same language. If they are mutually unintelligible, they are distinct languages. Your insults and name calling aren't going to change the fact that I actually know what I am talking about. New England ENglish, Southern English, London English are all DIALECTS of the same language. They are all mutually intelligible. Shanghainese, Cantonese, Mandarin are all separate languages within the same Sinitic language family. THIS is in accordance with the accepted definition of language and dialect by linguists. Check a linguistics text sometime!

WEll at least you are now being honest and admitting that I cited a source. But you are questioning the legitimacy of Wikipedia now. So let's examine this because this is a perfect example of when I say you use your western analysis on something very eastern.
話 (hua) in Chinese is not a language 語 (yu) on the other hand is.
If we look only at intelligibility between spoken words to be of mutually exclusive languages, than certainly Irish or Scottish english would be considered a completely different language from that of British English - varied vocabulary grammatical useage of placement of the subject within a sentence. Yet the truth is opposite. Merely dialects. Which is precisly why in our society we have mandarin, shanghainese, minna all of which are 話 (hua) and not 語 (yu). Even the most die hard of all seperatist nut heads will dare not to deny that they speak Taiwan hua not Taiwan yu. So spare me your nonesense in trying to create something that it is not.

I am not lying. Minnan spoken in Fujian and Minnan (Taiwanese) spoken in Taiwan are NOT identical, just as NEw England English and British English are NOT identical. Are they dialects of the same language (Minnan)? Yes, because they are mutually intelligible, but they are not identical. Heck, there are variations of the language even here in Taiwan! Please, substitute your ignorance of basic principles of linguistics and international law with a little reading of BOOKS, not Wikipedia.

Spare me, they're not identical because of a variation in accent and vocabulary usage from geographical differences. ie New England English vs Georgian English. Again trying to create something out of nothing. Hell even the mandarin spoken in Taiwan is different from that in Singapore and mainland because of varied customs, simply a variance of accent. Should we start classifying Brooklyn English as a new form of language? Cause it's practically intelligible to me.

I have cited professional sources, you made a single citation to Wikipedia. WHat a joke. Why don't you check the scholarly sources I have cited.

You went from no source whatsoever to now a single source. I'll pass it off as you writing in a rush and forgetting about that.
Professional studies have shown Wiki to be as accurate as Britannica so if you wish to use Britannica to prove something, than I can use Wiki.
As for your other two sources, how convenient for you that there's no link to them allowing for verification. Both of which settle on intelligibility.
Yet according to various other scholars the distinction between dialect and language is not as clear cut as simply intelligibility. Another example German in Cologne versus the German of rural Bavaria both german, yet mutually not intelligible. Different languages? Then we have Sweedish and Norwegian, both we know as different languages, yet no difficulty in intelligibility -hence language can be socially and or politically determined. I cite Dr. Tucker Childs, professor of Linguistics at Portland State University for this info.
Thus Chinese is a language to which Cantonese, Shanghainese, Taiwanese, Fujianese, Shandonese, Mandarin are all regional dialects of - as is also confirmed by the variation in the distinction of hua vs yu among all Chinese.
So, like I said, your trying to create a separation where none exists.
Ask anyone who speaks Cantonese if what they speak is not Chinese, or anyone of Shanghainese if it is not Chinese. The only ability that you have of making the distinction that Taiwanese is somehow a different language is that of what I've mentioned here; that being the political variations dictated by the military of the ROC of being a seperate entity from the PRC. Hence you pry on this distinction to force that Taiwan is not Chinese.
For if you really really really wanted to be technical, all dialects are languages.

 

[jfuh]

Except that you can't intellectually challenge it. BEsides, I have held to the position of Taiwanese self-determination ever since I completed my master's thesis on this topic more than ten years ago, long before I ever took up residence in Taiwan. Nice attempt at creating yet another strawman. Along with your others, it is now engulfed in flames.

You haven't debunked anything. I have cited SCHOLARLY works, while you stick with Wikipedia. I present facts, you present your ignorant opinions. PLease get yourself an education.

Un huh, :roll: Your presentations are warped and edited leaving out many key points relevant to the argument.

Again, you completely mischaracterize my argument. I said that there was no LEGAL basis for the transfer of sovereignty, I did not say that they did not contiune to exercise control. The reality is, most Taiwanese do NOT consider themselves part of China. Sooner or later, the government here will change the name of this country. You no longer see ROC on the stamps of this country, they all say Taiwan now. That is the reality that you have to deal with. China doesn't control this island, the Taiwanese people do and once the will of the Taiwanese people is reflected by the government, there will be a reality you will have to deal with.

THis is by far the most bullshit and dishonest statement of all.
The stamps and much of the names no longer reflect ROC because of the separatist moron Chen insisting that there is no relationship. Precisely why I say you are of the same wacko mentality of those in the deep south in cities like Tainan. You eat it up as if it were proof of anything. When Ma is sworn in in 2008 and changes everything back (as he did with Taipei) are you then going to accept that the ROC is Taiwan? Of course not.
The reality is what I've been stating all along. Taiwan is ROC. You separatists lost your 15 year window of opportunity to declare independence even if there were any grounds for such. Like it or not, Taiwan is Chinese - there is the very real distinction between PRC and ROC both are China dissimilar to the North and South Song Dynasties nearly a thousand years ago. This isn't the first time that China had been seperated into two different independent nations. OMG I said nations, that's right nations. ROC is not PRC; never has been and dear god never will be. The current status as it has been for the last 60 years is that the two nations have been independent - let me repeat that again in bold for you, INDEPENDENT of each other. However in the not too distant future, China will eventually re-unite as it has countless times in the past near 5000 years. You've criticized me before as being xenophobic towards you, and it was ppl like me that display this attitude towards you as you are a foreigner. This is the exact reason that we have such an attitude towards you. It's nothing to do with where you are from, it's your attitude. You think that because you've been around the block met a few ppl or even wed someone here that you would be accepted. Yet your thought is not eastern it's still western and you think that you know when in actually you're but a half bottle of vinegar. I commend you for being far above average for foreigners, but you still have a long long ways to go if you want to really be accepted. Part of that is understanding just what Chinese really is as opposed to your flopped partisan American neocon view of "mainlander" "KMT" or your beloved "chicom".

 

[ludahai]

:roll: All this garbage, fine, I'll humor you and take this one a bit more seriously than I have the last couple pages.
Hmmm, 16th century vs 20th century, why is that Lu? Dishonesty at it's worst. I already kicked your *** up and down the wall with this one. the ROC is the rightful successor governmental entity to the Qing Empire; and reclaimed Taiwan after being stolen through force by Japan after surrender. It was part of the cease fire agreement signed on the battleship Missouri and was recognized internationally as such.

You have done absolutely no such thing. You are the one who has constantly brought up the comarison to the British colonies and the legal right to the United States to sovereignty over the territory it now possesses. I have just called you on that and this is your response.

Was the ROC the rightful successor to the Qing? Of course. However, at that time, Taiwan was a part of the Japanese Empire. In order for territory to be transferred from one state to another, a legally executed and binding treaty is required. There is none. I have already cited the example of France following World War I when it regained territory lost to Prussia in the Franco-Prussian War. Though the French occuppied the territory after the war, the de jure transfer was accomplished through the specifical mechanism provided for in the Treaty of Versailles.

Were it not so, you would not be living in a Free Taiwan - like I said, you want to question ROC sovereignty? When you leave the country next time, tell the customs agent that the ROC has no authority and that the stamp of immigration is illegal. Tell Chen that his presidency is illegal and in total violation of international law. Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of military personnel who've died defending Taiwan from the onslaught of the mainland red army that they have no right to be defending Taiwan. You've nothing but radicalist ideology; cooking up anything just so as to distance as far as possible any ties between Taiwan and the mainland - pathetic.

All I have argued is that there was no legal transfer of de jure sovereignty from Japan to the ROC following World War II. You have been unable to come up with the required ingredient of transfer (a treaty) to back it up. The legal status of Taiwan is undetermined, and under modern international law, that leaves the right of the people of Taiwan to determine their own future. I am for Taiwanese self-determination! Are you?

Funny considering it's an irrelevant point in the face of reality.

Prescription IS irrelevant from the perspective of Taiwan in this question because it does not apply here. You have tried to compare Taiwan to the USA, but the two situations are NOT the same, as you have admitted earlier in this post.

Hahahahaha, let's dial back a bit further because you're history lacks, typical of those that the facts all get out.
However I haven't been all out honest myself either in my wish to avoid getting into a real discussion. So let me clarify. Vietnam and Korea were both [FONT=新細明體][FONT=&#27161]籓屬國. Froeign nations are not allowed to directly negotiate, ally or do business with such territories without going through China first.

That was China's point of view, a point not shared by the Vietnamese. The Chinese had tried to re-impose their rule during the reign of the despot Zhu Di. They failed. Vietnam had retained their independence ever since. China CLAIMED a suzerain status, but the Vietnamese typically thumbed their collective noses at that claim. The fact is, the French (and others) had been dealing directly with the Vietnamese despite Chinese claims from the 17th century, all through the Vietnamese civil war that persisted into the early years of the 19th century.

France, during internal strife in China during 1862 signed the first treaty of Saigon then reconfirmed this treaty with what you called the Treaty of Hui and finally leading to the second treaty of Saigon reaffirming all previous treaties and gainig full diplomatic power in Vietnam. Even though, all such treaties were to be approved by China first - Vietnam as a

[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=新細明體][FONT=&#27161]籓屬國 of China was in no position to negotiate directly with France.

Again, those were Chinese claims not shared by the Vietnamese. The Chinese did not accept the Treaty of Hue (not Hui) and invaded as a result. The French beat them and forced the Chinese to relent. This does not change the fact that China really had no more than symbolic authority over Vietnam at this time, a fact even acknowledged by Chinese historians.

Full diplomatic and freedom of business was insufficient for the French, the French wanted to claim colonial rule over Vietnam and declared on behalf of Vietnam separation from China.

Agreed on French ambitions. The French desired a springboard into southwestern China, most notably Yunnan, to compete with British interests in Upper Burma. However, the Vietnamese never accepted Chinese claims of suzrainty. The "tribute missions" carried much more meaning for the Chinese than they ever did for the Vietnamese and they routinely ignored it after the missions returned and they dealt with their neighbors and then western powers without consulting China.

Of course this being unacceptable to China leading finally to the Sino-Franco war. Your former citations said nothing of these matters. FOr vietnam it was simply the neighbor to the south, which says zip about the status of Vietnam under China.

China CLAIMED suzrain status over Vietnam. Those claims were not recognized by the Trinh or the Nguyen.

Then the other reference between Korea and China merely stated that China and Japan were to be notified of attack. Yet, Korea was under the same conditions with China as Vietnam - in fact, so was Japan.

Now JAPAN was suzrain to China? Please, give it a rest. Japan had NEVER been suzrain to China. They had periods (particularly in the 15th century) where they had leaders with affinity towards China, but they never were suzrain to it. Korea is a different matter, but over the course of the ninteenth century, as the Qing weakened, the Koreans increasingly asserted their independence over Chinese claims of suzrainty. Remember, you initially said that Korea and Vietnam were A PART of China, implying sovereignty. Suzrainty does not equate to sovereignty, and suzrain relationship was not mutually rezognized, especially by Vietnam, though the 19th century.

Hence; my claims are not false. As historically China was in the position to negotiate on behalf as well as provide for the protection of these regions and these regions were required to pay prize to the central government of China. If you were to read some untranslated literature on these matters and actually comprehend what is written you would understand this. I gather from what I see your arguments presented here that you read the translated literature to which quite literally, much of the significance is lost in translation.

I have read the Chinese, but as I have said, the Chinese unilaterally made such claims. They were not reciprocitated by the Vietnamese.

Hold on here, first let me give you credit where credit is deserved, for the first time since this thread you've finally been honest about something. A crash in the market in 97 and rebound back in 2000. This even admist the global slow down of economies after the dot com burst in 98.

Of course I am going to be honest, I always am. I am in the search for truth, not some political grandstanding. However, you are being dishonest in saying that it was President Chen causing the second drop. Then, President Chen was also to blame from the drop of the Hang Seng (over 18,000 in May 2000 dropped to 8300 in spring of 2003); the Nikkei similarly dropped (over 20,000 in May 2000 dropped to under 8000 in spring of 2003); the Kospi (over 1000 in January 2000 dropped to under 540 in April 2003). It is clear that the Taiwan market FOLLOWED trends in Asia which could NOT have been caused by President Chen. Dow Jones (over 11,600 in March 2000 dropped to under 7500 in Sept. 2002); NASDAQ (over 5000 in March 2000 dropped to almost 1100 in September 2002); FTSE (over 6800 in September 2000 dropped to 3300 in March 2003. I am sure President Chen was to blame for these drops in North America and Europe as well. You love to blame President Chen for drops in the stock market, but I have conclusively shown that your examples are just situations where Taiwan's market was following regional and/or global trends.

BTW, the dot com bust happened in 2000, NOT in 1998 as you said in your post.

So, the Taiwan stock exchange plummeted from 10,000 to 6000 within 2 years and then in early 2000 shot back up to 10,000. And tell me, what exactly happened in the year after Chen took office and where is that mark today? Has the market index ever hit back to 10,000 ever?
It's interesting how you have neglected this small and essential detail.

You have neglected the rather LARGE detail that it was a massive GLOBAL selloff due largely to the dot com bust, which you erronously dated from 1998.

WEll at least you are now being honest and admitting that I cited a source. But you are questioning the legitimacy of Wikipedia now.

Wikipedia is not the best of sources as the overwhelming majority of the articles are written by lay people, not experts in their respective fields.

So let's examine this because this is a perfect example of when I say you use your western analysis on something very eastern.
話 (hua) in Chinese is not a language 語 (yu) on the other hand is.
If we look only at intelligibility between spoken words to be of mutually exclusive languages, than certainly Irish or Scottish english would be considered a completely different language from that of British English - varied vocabulary grammatical useage of placement of the subject within a sentence. Yet the truth is opposite. Merely dialects. Which is precisly why in our society we have mandarin, shanghainese, minna all of which are 話 (hua) and not 語 (yu). Even the most die hard of all seperatist nut heads will dare not to deny that they speak Taiwan hua not Taiwan yu. So spare me your nonesense in trying to create something that it is not.

Your analysis of hua and yu do not conform to contemporary usage. They are largely interchanged today. American English is called meiyu in Taiwan. Taiwan's language is commonly referred to as Taiyu, NOT Taiwanhua. Mandarin is called Guoyu in Taiwan, but Putonghua in China. Cantonese is called Guangdonghua and Taiwan, but it is often called Yueyu in China. There are many more examples, but there is no where near the exclusivity of use of the terms hua and yu as you suggest.

As for dialect and language vis a vis accent (a term not commonly used in the lexicon of linguistics by the way,) take that up with professional linguists. I merely report what they write and teach.

 

[ludahai]

...continued

Spare me, they're not identical because of a variation in accent and vocabulary usage from geographical differences. ie New England English vs Georgian English. Again trying to create something out of nothing. Hell even the mandarin spoken in Taiwan is different from that in Singapore and mainland because of varied customs, simply a variance of accent. Should we start classifying Brooklyn English as a new form of language? Cause it's practically intelligible to me.

Thank you for describing very well the distinction in dialect. Different vocabulary combined with intonation and usage pretty much provides a layman's definition of the concent. Yes, Taiwan's Mandarin and Singapore's Mandarin are DIALECTS! You are getting the point!

I will finish this later. I have to go to work so I can put food in my daughters' bowls.

 

[jfuh]

You have done absolutely no such thing. You are the one who has constantly brought up the comarison to the British colonies and the legal right to the United States to sovereignty over the territory it now possesses. I have just called you on that and this is your response.

Was the ROC the rightful successor to the Qing? Of course. However, at that time, Taiwan was a part of the Japanese Empire. In order for territory to be transferred from one state to another, a legally executed and binding treaty is required. There is none. I have already cited the example of France following World War I when it regained territory lost to Prussia in the Franco-Prussian War. Though the French occuppied the territory after the war, the de jure transfer was accomplished through the specifical mechanism provided for in the Treaty of Versailles.

Territory that was stolen over through force; hence return to it's rightful owner after the signing of the cease fire on the USS Missouri - to which Chiang sent the military to handle the transfer and Japanese military retreated. Done de jure transfer is irrelevant in the face of reality - not to mention the 15 year grace period.

All I have argued is that there was no legal transfer of de jure sovereignty from Japan to the ROC following World War II. You have been unable to come up with the required ingredient of transfer (a treaty) to back it up. The legal status of Taiwan is undetermined, and under modern international law, that leaves the right of the people of Taiwan to determine their own future. I am for Taiwanese self-determination! Are you?

A period of 15 years only for that determination, after which there is none, whom ever exercises control is in control - in particular that of transfer of rule after the end of the war. Your argument is quite moot to the reality.
You make it sound as if there is no self determination today. The ROC is already a free nation, the oldest republic and the only democracy in all of east asia. You and your separatist bunch want to literally erase Chinese from everything around in Taiwan. Sorry ain't gonna happen.

Prescription IS irrelevant from the perspective of Taiwan in this question because it does not apply here. You have tried to compare Taiwan to the USA, but the two situations are NOT the same, as you have admitted earlier in this post.

God it's like talking to a broken record here. Postdam, Cairo, Instrument of surrender by Japan all of which state who Taiwan is sovereign by, not to mention the reality. Like I said, you want to argue about who is in charge, then next time when you reach the customs agent tell them you have no right to check my passport.

That was China's point of view, a point not shared by the Vietnamese. The Chinese had tried to re-impose their rule during the reign of the despot Zhu Di. They failed. Vietnam had retained their independence ever since. China CLAIMED a suzerain status, but the Vietnamese typically thumbed their collective noses at that claim. The fact is, the French (and others) had been dealing directly with the Vietnamese despite Chinese claims from the 17th century, all through the Vietnamese civil war that persisted into the early years of the 19th century.

a point not shared? Really? Tell me then , why was it that Vietnam continuously paid tribute every 4 years until being invaded by French forces?

Again, those were Chinese claims not shared by the Vietnamese. The Chinese did not accept the Treaty of Hue (not Hui) and invaded as a result. The French beat them and forced the Chinese to relent. This does not change the fact that China really had no more than symbolic authority over Vietnam at this time, a fact even acknowledged by Chinese historians.

Invaded? What happened in Tianjing with the french missionary claims; why did the french fleet attack Keelung (but get their arse kicked)? Half truths to demonize anything Chinese.

Agreed on French ambitions. The French desired a springboard into southwestern China, most notably Yunnan, to compete with British interests in Upper Burma. However, the Vietnamese never accepted Chinese claims of suzrainty. The "tribute missions" carried much more meaning for the Chinese than they ever did for the Vietnamese and they routinely ignored it after the missions returned and they dealt with their neighbors and then western powers without consulting China.

Only during the time of internal turmoil within China. The tribute missions were in acceptance of their status. In 1856 France illegally entered Vietnam without notification to China with the excuse of missionaries - what we call today illegal aliens lamo). Then using the second opium war against China (yep, British and French together as drug lords forcing their drugs into China) as a means to secure a foothold in vietnam as well as forcing vietnam to accept French jurisdiction over cambodia.To further define what 屬國 means it's identical to occupied Japan. Hence the relationship here was occupied Vietnam. Same with Korea and same with Japan 1000 years earlier in Chinese history. Yet, you deny this.

China CLAIMED suzrain status over Vietnam. Those claims were not recognized by the Trinh or the Nguyen.

Saigon recognized this.

Now JAPAN was suzrain to China? Please, give it a rest. Japan had NEVER been suzrain to China. They had periods (particularly in the 15th century) where they had leaders with affinity towards China, but they never were suzrain to it. Korea is a different matter, but over the course of the ninteenth century, as the Qing weakened, the Koreans increasingly asserted their independence over Chinese claims of suzrainty. Remember, you initially said that Korea and Vietnam were A PART of China, implying sovereignty. Suzrainty does not equate to sovereignty, and suzrain relationship was not mutually rezognized, especially by Vietnam, though the 19th century.

Yep, Japan was during the Tang Dynasty. Just look up "漢倭奴國" Even the Japanese do not deny this. Right now you're just trying to get out of this one because you know I'm right.

I have read the Chinese, but as I have said, the Chinese unilaterally made such claims. They were not reciprocitated by the Vietnamese.

Of course I am going to be honest, I always am.I am in the search for truth, not some political grandstanding.

:lamo

However, you are being dishonest in saying that it was President Chen causing the second drop. Then, President Chen was also to blame from the drop of the Hang Seng (over 18,000 in May 2000 dropped to 8300 in spring of 2003); the Nikkei similarly dropped (over 20,000 in May 2000 dropped to under 8000 in spring of 2003); the Kospi (over 1000 in January 2000 dropped to under 540 in April 2003). It is clear that the Taiwan market FOLLOWED trends in Asia which could NOT have been caused by President Chen. Dow Jones (over 11,600 in March 2000 dropped to under 7500 in Sept. 2002); NASDAQ (over 5000 in March 2000 dropped to almost 1100 in September 2002); FTSE (over 6800 in September 2000 dropped to 3300 in March 2003. I am sure President Chen was to blame for these drops in North America and Europe as well. You love to blame President Chen for drops in the stock market, but I have conclusively shown that your examples are just situations where Taiwan's market was following regional and/or global trends.

Absolute points is only meaningful to their respective markets but meaningless to world markets. Why don't you post the percentile that they dropped in reference to how much of a percentile the Taiwan stock exchange dropped?

BTW, the dot com bust happened in 2000, NOT in 1998 as you said in your post.[/QUOTE] And yet the economy completely recovered only to be broken by Chen later, thanks for that

You have neglected the rather LARGE detail that it was a massive GLOBAL selloff due largely to the dot com bust, which you erronously dated from 1998.

Look at the percentiles then get back to me on that. And still now, even though global markets have largely recovered, where is the Taiwan market now? back to 10000? Not even close.

Wikipedia is not the best of sources as the overwhelming majority of the articles are written by lay people, not experts in their respective fields.

Source
Seems just as good as Britannica.

Your analysis of hua and yu do not conform to contemporary usage. They are largely interchanged today. American English is called meiyu in Taiwan. Taiwan's language is commonly referred to as Taiyu, NOT Taiwanhua. Mandarin is called Guoyu in Taiwan, but Putonghua in China. Cantonese is called Guangdonghua and Taiwan, but it is often called Yueyu in China. There are many more examples, but there is no where near the exclusivity of use of the terms hua and yu as you suggest.

Again, a mis-statement. Taiyu is the common reference to the most commonly spoken Minnan hua. Linguistically there exists no such thing as taiyu for if there were then it neglects the various other "hua" aka dialects - ie hakka. Guo yu in Taiwan is what is referenced to as being Chinese in translation in both Taiwan and the mainland and is Mandarin or Guan hua (though no longer commonly used).You called me a liar about it well I'm showing you of your skewed information in an all out attempt to distance Chinese in Taiwan from Chinese on the Mainland.

As for dialect and language vis a vis accent (a term not commonly used in the lexicon of linguistics by the way,) take that up with professional linguists. I merely report what they write and teach.

It was your claim, so don't go around running from it as if you have nothing to do with it. Suck it up, you claimed an absolute standard. I showed that claim to be misrepresented or at least omitted by you.

 

[jfuh]

...continued



Thank you for describing very well the distinction in dialect. Different vocabulary combined with intonation and usage pretty much provides a layman's definition of the concent. Yes, Taiwan's Mandarin and Singapore's Mandarin are DIALECTS! You are getting the point!

I will finish this later. I have to go to work so I can put food in my daughters' bowls.

You have not finished the entire post. I suggest you read through before jumping to conclusions.

 

[ludahai]

...continued

:
You went from no source whatsoever to now a single source. I'll pass it off as you writing in a rush and forgetting about that.
Professional studies have shown Wiki to be as accurate as Britannica so if you wish to use Britannica to prove something, than I can use Wiki.

Of course, you have no citation for those studies. Frankly, as an editor on Wiki myself, I know about the infighting that goes on behind the scenes there. There are some good articles, however, many leave a lot to be desired for accuracy and NPOV.

As for your other two sources, how convenient for you that there's no link to them allowing for verification. Both of which settle on intelligibility.

Well sorry. In the world of scholarship, books are still the currency that is accepted in academia. Websites are typically not considered the highest level support for arguments in an academic paper. I hold my students to this higher standard as well as myself and those I debate with.

Yet according to various other scholars the distinction between dialect and language is not as clear cut as simply intelligibility. Another example German in Cologne versus the German of rural Bavaria both german, yet mutually not intelligible. Different languages? Then we have Sweedish and Norwegian, both we know as different languages, yet no difficulty in intelligibility -hence language can be socially and or politically determined. I cite Dr. Tucker Childs, professor of Linguistics at Portland State University for this info.

It says that the GERMANS don't consider them to be separate languages, though if they are TRULY mutually intelligible, they would be classified by LINGUSTS as separate languages. Same with Norweigan and Swedish. Swedes and Norweigians classify them as languages, but linguists generally do not. This comes from my college text on the matter as well as the lecture notes from my professor.

Thus Chinese is a language to which Cantonese, Shanghainese, Taiwanese, Fujianese, Shandonese, Mandarin are all regional dialects of - as is also confirmed by the variation in the distinction of hua vs yu among all Chinese.

Once again, you are full of it. Chinese is at heart a writing, and not a unified spoken language. There are many languages spoken within China, many of which are in the Sinitic language family. However, to say that Shanghainese, Cantonese, Taiwanese, etc. are all the same language, this is akin to saying German, English, French and Romansch are all the same language. That is a myth that has been maintained by Chinese autocrats for hundreds of years, but it doesn't have any basis in linguistic fact.

So, like I said, your trying to create a separation where none exists.
Ask anyone who speaks Cantonese if what they speak is not Chinese, or anyone of Shanghainese if it is not Chinese. The only ability that you have of making the distinction that Taiwanese is somehow a different language is that of what I've mentioned here; that being the political variations dictated by the military of the ROC of being a seperate entity from the PRC. Hence you pry on this distinction to force that Taiwan is not Chinese.
For if you really really really wanted to be technical, all dialects are languages.

I am not saying that Taiwan is not linguistically or culturally Chinese. Taiwanese is a dialect of Minnanyu which is in the Sinitic language family and thus is related to Mandarin and Cantonese. However, Minnanyu is NOT the same language as putonghua or yueyu.

 

[jfuh]

Of course, you have no citation for those studies. Frankly, as an editor on Wiki myself, I know about the infighting that goes on behind the scenes there. There are some good articles, however, many leave a lot to be desired for accuracy and NPOV.

lying again, read down the post and you saw my citation.
Editors such as you would pull the argument the way which you want it, but then other editors would pull it back into the correct way. So canceled out.

Well sorry. In the world of scholarship, books are still the currency that is accepted in academia. Websites are typically not considered the highest level support for arguments in an academic paper. I hold my students to this higher standard as well as myself and those I debate with.

Higher standard? Funny, in my line of academia all the publications have online electronic formats dating back to 1978 including abstracts dating back to the 1920's. There's no "higher" level in your citation at all.

It says that the GERMANS don't consider them to be separate languages, though if they are TRULY mutually intelligible, they would be classified by LINGUSTS as separate languages. Same with Norweigan and Swedish. Swedes and Norweigians classify them as languages, but linguists generally do not. This comes from my college text on the matter as well as the lecture notes from my professor.

Simply, intelligibility is not the basis for language, determination

Once again, you are full of it. Chinese is at heart a writing, and not a unified spoken language. There are many languages spoken within China, many of which are in the Sinitic language family. However, to say that Shanghainese, Cantonese, Taiwanese, etc. are all the same language, this is akin to saying German, English, French and Romansch are all the same language. That is a myth that has been maintained by Chinese autocrats for hundreds of years, but it doesn't have any basis in linguistic fact.

See here you go again. You submit that Chinese writing regardless of the spoken dialect is universal and here you bring up German, English, French ect to counter? These not only have varied intelligibility but also completely different written and grammatical structure - ie Spanish sexxing up everything. Talk of intellectual dishonesty.

I am not saying that Taiwan is not linguistically or culturally Chinese. Taiwanese is a dialect of Minnanyu which is in the Sinitic language family and thus is related to Mandarin and Cantonese. However, Minnanyu is NOT the same language as putonghua or yueyu.

Again, there is no such thing as minnanyu, it's minnanhua. You dwell on this variation to again make a distinction and separation where none exists. Since you love using your students as some example then go on, ask your students if what they speak is "zhong wen" or "guo yu" - and be honest about it without using "zhong guo hua" to invoke an artificial difference referencing to the mainland.

 

[ludahai]

Territory that was stolen over through force; hence return to it's rightful owner after the signing of the cease fire on the USS Missouri - to which Chiang sent the military to handle the transfer and Japanese military retreated. Done de jure transfer is irrelevant in the face of reality - not to mention the 15 year grace period.

Once again, the means of the transfer are irrelevant. So long as there is a legally ratified and executed peace treaty, it does not matter. I will once again bring up the example of Alsace and Lorraine. France was forced to surrender them to the Prussians (later Germany) after the Franco-Prussian War. Their return to France still needed to be confirmed by the postwar treaty in 1919.

A period of 15 years only for that determination, after which there is none, whom ever exercises control is in control - in particular that of transfer of rule after the end of the war. Your argument is quite moot to the reality.
You make it sound as if there is no self determination today. The ROC is already a free nation, the oldest republic and the only democracy in all of east asia. You and your separatist bunch want to literally erase Chinese from everything around in Taiwan. Sorry ain't gonna happen.

There is no basis for your fictional 15-year statute of limitations on self-determination of people. I did NOT see this in the UN CHarter. So, I guess the people of East Timor (now Timor Leste) did not have the legal right to self-determination because the Indonesians had occupied it for 24 years? Oh, that's right. They DID get their right to self-determination.

ROC is the ONLY democracy in East Asia? Well, it wasn't a democracy under your hero Chiang Kaishek. It most certainly is NOT the only democracy in East Asia. How about Japan, Republic of Korea, and Mongolia?

God it's like talking to a broken record here. Postdam, Cairo, Instrument of surrender by Japan all of which state who Taiwan is sovereign by, not to mention the reality. Like I said, you want to argue about who is in charge, then next time when you reach the customs agent tell them you have no right to check my passport.

Where is the treaty? Was Cairo a treaty? No! Was Potsdam a treaty? No! Was the Instrument of Surrender a treaty? No! Let me repeat: A PROPERLY RATIFIED AND EXECUTED TREATY IS REQUIRED TO TRANSFER TERRITORY FROM ONE STATE TO ANOTHER! None of these documents meets that standard!

a point not shared? Really? Tell me then , why was it that Vietnam continuously paid tribute every 4 years until being invaded by French forces?

You know as well as I do that the nations to the south only sent "tribute" missions to access China's trade markets.

Invaded? What happened in Tianjing with the french missionary claims; why did the french fleet attack Keelung (but get their arse kicked)? Half truths to demonize anything Chinese.

I don't demonize anything CHinese. Why would I be a student of CHinese history and one of the major contributors to Chinese historical articles on Wikipedia if I hated the Chinese so much? I merely hate the present government of China and those who would choose to deliberately misrepresent history for their own agenda.

Only during the time of internal turmoil within China. The tribute missions were in acceptance of their status. In 1856 France illegally entered Vietnam without notification to China with the excuse of missionaries - what we call today illegal aliens lamo).

Vietnam was a sovereign nation. There was no need to notify China.

Then using the second opium war against China (yep, British and French together as drug lords forcing their drugs into China) as a means to secure a foothold in vietnam as well as forcing vietnam to accept French jurisdiction over cambodia.

I have long criticized the British and their role in forcing China to import its opium. However, China was deliberate closing itself off to trade in that era as well - not that it justifies what the British did.

To further define what 屬國 means it's identical to occupied Japan. Hence the relationship here was occupied Vietnam. Same with Korea and same with Japan 1000 years earlier in Chinese history. Yet, you deny this.

You are saying that China had sovereign rights over Japan, Korea, Vietnam - heck, we may as well add Calicut to that list. Even states as far as Malindi had sent "tribute" missions. Are you going to suggest that they were all subservient to China? Give me a break. Next, you are going to tell me the Chinese sailed all around the world in 1423!

Saigon recognized this.

That's funny since Hue was the capital of unified Vietnam after the end of the civil war in the early 19th century. Prior to that, Hanoi was the capital. Saigon was only the capital of South Vietnam. The Mekong Delta region is traditionally Khmer territory that did not enter the Vietnamese realm until the17th and 18th centuries.

Yep, Japan was during the Tang Dynasty. Just look up "漢倭奴國" Even the Japanese do not deny this. Right now you're just trying to get out of this one because you know I'm right.

Tang Dynasty? More than 1000 years ago? What does that have to do with more recent history? Are you telling me that the Tang enjoyed any rights at all in Japan? Please, SPARE ME your Sinocentric history.

Absolute points is only meaningful to their respective markets but meaningless to world markets. Why don't you post the percentile that they dropped in reference to how much of a percentile the Taiwan stock exchange dropped?

Because I didn't have time to work out the math, as I do not now. Besides, it is irrelevant as each market is different. Taiwan's market is tech-heavy, meaning that it would fall more than the others.

[/QUOTE] And yet the economy completely recovered only to be broken by Chen later, thanks for that[/quote]

No, it did not. It dropped to below 4000 after the dot.com bust. Please, get your facts straight.

Look at the percentiles then get back to me on that. And still now, even though global markets have largely recovered, where is the Taiwan market now? back to 10000? Not even close.

Well, perhaps the do-nothing KMT controlled legislature could actually pass something CONSTRUCTIVE like the 2007 Budget, the arms procurement package, or the infrastructure package proposed by President Chen a couple of years ago. What has the KMT done that is actually constructive? NOTHING!

Japan's NIKKEI has not returned to its pre-dot com bust high of more than 20,000. The NASDAQ is still only about half of its pre bust high of around 5000. London's FTSE has yet to reach its pre-bust high of around 7000. I am sure there are others, but I don't have the time to look for them right now. Again, perhaps if the KMT-controlled Legislative Yuan actually passed legislation beneficial to the country rather than try to pass unconstitutional legislation solely for their benefit might this country actually perform better than it is - which under the circumstances, it not performing that badly.


Source
Seems just as good as Britannica.

Again, a mis-statement. Taiyu is the common reference to the most commonly spoken Minnan hua. Linguistically there exists no such thing as taiyu for if there were then it neglects the various other "hua" aka dialects - ie hakka. Guo yu in Taiwan is what is referenced to as being Chinese in translation in both Taiwan and the mainland and is Mandarin or Guan hua (though no longer commonly used).You called me a liar about it well I'm showing you of your skewed information in an all out attempt to distance Chinese in Taiwan from Chinese on the Mainland.

Taiyu is a dialect of Minnanhua (also referred to as Minnanyu.) Did you know the term yueyu is commonly used in China for Guangdonghua? Face it, I caught you on this one too and you can't bear it.

 

[ludahai]

Another point on the sovereignty aspect.

According to the ROC Constitution you love so much, the territory of the ROC can only be changed through an act of the Legislative Yuan (rather silly from the perspective of international law.) However, when the ROC was founded,Taiwan was a part of the Japanese Empire. When the post-war constitution was promulgated, there were no Taiwanese delegates present. To my knowledge, there has been no law passed by the Legislative Yuan declaring Taiwan to be part of the Republic of China. Thus, by the very constitution you support so much,Taiwan is NOT part of the ROC.

 

[jfuh]

Around and around we go again and again, you can't get out of your little circles because you know damn well that once you face reality all your arguments are moot.

Once again, the means of the transfer are irrelevant. So long as there is a legally ratified and executed peace treaty, it does not matter. I will once again bring up the example of Alsace and Lorraine. France was forced to surrender them to the Prussians (later Germany) after the Franco-Prussian War. Their return to France still needed to be confirmed by the postwar treaty in 1919.

Means of transfer irrelevant yet you continue to bask on one mean over another. A ridiculous double standard.

There is no basis for your fictional 15-year statute of limitations on self-determination of people. I did NOT see this in the UN CHarter. So, I guess the people of East Timor (now Timor Leste) did not have the legal right to self-determination because the Indonesians had occupied it for 24 years? Oh, that's right. They DID get their right to self-determination.

Fictional? There's nothing fictional about it. What and how would the UN charter be applicable to a domestic issue?
You want to argue this again, as I said go say that to the customs agent next time you leave the country. Reality is quite a bitch.

ROC is the ONLY democracy in East Asia? Well, it wasn't a democracy under your hero Chiang Kaishek. It most certainly is NOT the only democracy in East Asia. How about Japan, Republic of Korea, and Mongolia?

What a lie, plz show me when and where I've ever stated that Chiang Kaishek was my hero, his son I have high appraisal for, but himself asside from his historical significance of fighting against Imperialist Japan and preventing red china from invading Taiwan he has little praise in my book.
Japan where the officials today are still elected by means of back room talks? Korea? come on you have got to be kidding, they are far from democracies. If you count Japan as a democracy then hey, Taiwan even under Martial law would qualify as a democracy. But then none of those countries state clearly without lies that they are not under a quasi martial law.
But oh, you are so full of blind partisan hatred that anything that gives credit to the pan blue is "irrelevant" in your opinion.

Where is the treaty? Was Cairo a treaty? No! Was Potsdam a treaty? No! Was the Instrument of Surrender a treaty? No! Let me repeat: A PROPERLY RATIFIED AND EXECUTED TREATY IS REQUIRED TO TRANSFER TERRITORY FROM ONE STATE TO ANOTHER! None of these documents meets that standard!

Where did France Aquire the Louisiana territory from? Which treaty did Napoleon sign with the native americans to aquire that land from? Again this ridiculous double standard.

You know as well as I do that the nations to the south only sent "tribute" missions to access China's trade markets.

Now why in the world would they do that?

I don't demonize anything CHinese. Why would I be a student of CHinese history and one of the major contributors to Chinese historical articles on Wikipedia if I hated the Chinese so much? I merely hate the present government of China and those who would choose to deliberately misrepresent history for their own agenda.

One that has failed quite miserably at the subject matter then. Oh wow, a contributer to WIki, hey so am I so what?

Vietnam was a sovereign nation. There was no need to notify China.

No need to? lol, like I said before, you've clearly no idea what you are talking about. Simply a half bottle of vinegar.

I have long criticized the British and their role in forcing China to import its opium. However, China was deliberate closing itself off to trade in that era as well - not that it justifies what the British did.

You are saying that China had sovereign rights over Japan, Korea, Vietnam - heck, we may as well add Calicut to that list. Even states as far as Malindi had sent "tribute" missions. Are you going to suggest that they were all subservient to China? Give me a break. Next, you are going to tell me the Chinese sailed all around the world in 1423!

Sarcasm does nothing to justify nor validate your position. My position was clear - you're lying.

That's funny since Hue was the capital of unified Vietnam after the end of the civil war in the early 19th century. Prior to that, Hanoi was the capital. Saigon was only the capital of South Vietnam. The Mekong Delta region is traditionally Khmer territory that did not enter the Vietnamese realm until the17th and 18th centuries.

sad how you can't respond without editing each of my lines.

Tang Dynasty? More than 1000 years ago? What does that have to do with more recent history? Are you telling me that the Tang enjoyed any rights at all in Japan? Please, SPARE ME your Sinocentric history.

:roll: Further sarcasms and denials, you can't make an argument without going off into a tangent and avoiding the points I've made. Funny coming from an egocentric religious nut whom defends the likes of Falwell.

Because I didn't have time to work out the math, as I do not now. Besides, it is irrelevant as each market is different. Taiwan's market is tech-heavy, meaning that it would fall more than the others.

:lamo math isn't your strong suit I suppose, neither it seems is truth.

No, it did not. It dropped to below 4000 after the dot.com bust. Please, get your facts straight.

You're just all over the place. Speaking of facts, tell again where was it before Chen took office?

Well, perhaps the do-nothing KMT controlled legislature could actually pass something CONSTRUCTIVE like the 2007 Budget, the arms procurement package, or the infrastructure package proposed by President Chen a couple of years ago. What has the KMT done that is actually constructive? NOTHING!
Ahhh typical partisan bullshit, just like the other neocons now screaming why aren't the dems doing more today even though in disregard to the fact that the president has veto and it takes a lot to clean up the mess of such a pathetic administration - applicable to both countries.
Now why doesn't the pan blue do something? Perhaps it has something to do with the ear marks of each of these bills and the amount of kick back involved with the administration as well as these bills allowing further power to the administration to scream its war mongering cries of independence along with arrogant individuals like yourself.
What has your beloved DPP done? What has Chen done? What has the executive branch with the actual power done? NOTHING

Japan's NIKKEI has not returned to its pre-dot com bust high of more than 20,000. The NASDAQ is still only about half of its pre bust high of around 5000. London's FTSE has yet to reach its pre-bust high of around 7000. I am sure there are others, but I don't have the time to look for them right now. Again, perhaps if the KMT-controlled Legislative Yuan actually passed legislation beneficial to the country rather than try to pass unconstitutional legislation solely for their benefit might this country actually perform better than it is - which under the circumstances, it not performing that badly.

Nikkei? Japan's economy burst has little to do with the dot come bust, and far more to do with it's own bubble economy burst after the 80's. NASDAQ? Come on be honest where's the Dow? S&P? All have mostly recovered from the dot com bust. It's funny how you state all markets are different and here are now making such a contrast.

Source
Seems just as good as Britannica.

With "contributors" as yourself who conscew the truth I'm not surprised. However:

In order to test its reliability, Nature conducted a peer review of scientific entries on Wikipedia and the well-established Encyclopedia Britannica. The reviewers were asked to check for errors, but were not told about the source of the information.
"Only eight serious errors, such as misinterpretations of important concepts, were detected in the pairs of articles reviewed, four from each encyclopedia," reported Nature.
"But reviewers also found many factual errors, omissions or misleading statements: 162 and 123 in Wikipedia and Britannica, respectively."

Yep all things considered just as good. Can't get over it can you?

Taiyu is a dialect of Minnanhua (also referred to as Minnanyu.) Did you know the term yueyu is commonly used in China for Guangdonghua? Face it, I caught you on this one too and you can't bear it.

Taiyu as I said is a non-existent misleading term that references to a populous dialect on the island that excludes the various other dialects spoken. You already got your *** nailed on this one and now your just grasping at irrelevancies. So let me ask you then, according to this new interpretation by you, what then is shanghaihua - a place you've claimed to have lived in for so long. Exactly as I've stated before, you insisted on a western interpretation on something that is anything but. You've nothing but a half bottle of vinegar, loud yet lacking sufficient substance.

 

[jfuh]

Another point on the sovereignty aspect.

According to the ROC Constitution you love so much, the territory of the ROC can only be changed through an act of the Legislative Yuan (rather silly from the perspective of international law.) However, when the ROC was founded,Taiwan was a part of the Japanese Empire. When the post-war constitution was promulgated, there were no Taiwanese delegates present. To my knowledge, there has been no law passed by the Legislative Yuan declaring Taiwan to be part of the Republic of China. Thus, by the very constitution you support so much,Taiwan is NOT part of the ROC.

Wow, I gave you too much credit, at first I thought you were just a foreigner sticking his nose up the wrong ***, now I realize you don't even know what you are talking about.
You go tell all this to the customs officials on your renewal of your alien visa. Tell them they have no authority. Reality is such a bitch. You want to have a real say in any of this then go serve military service in the ROC military as all male citizens do. And don't serve on the island of Taiwan, go serve over right across from xiamen on kinmen or Matsu. Put your money where your mouth is.

 

[ludahai]

Wow, I gave you too much credit, at first I thought you were just a foreigner sticking his nose up the wrong ***, now I realize you don't even know what you are talking about.
You go tell all this to the customs officials on your renewal of your alien visa. Tell them they have no authority. Reality is such a bitch. You want to have a real say in any of this then go serve military service in the ROC military as all male citizens do. And don't serve on the island of Taiwan, go serve over right across from xiamen on kinmen or Matsu. Put your money where your mouth is.

I don't have to go to renew any alien resident visa thank you very much.

As for Kinmin or Matsu (didn't you spell them wrong BTW?), as I don't believe that they are legally part of Taiwan to begin with, I don't think you statement has any relevance.

 

[ludahai]

Means of transfer irrelevant yet you continue to bask on one mean over another. A ridiculous double standard.

What double standard. I was being absolutely CONSISTENT. A treaty was required to transfer de jure soveriegnty of Alsasce and Lorraine back to France following WWI. According to your theory, that shouldn't have been necessary as they were recovering lost territory. However, according to international law, a legally binding treaty was required to transfer the territory, just as it was required in the case of Taiwan, though in this case, there was none. There is no double standard here. Simply a case of you not understanding the legal principles involved.

Fictional? There's nothing fictional about it. What and how would the UN charter be applicable to a domestic issue?

It is not a domestic issue. Taiwan was part of Japan. Japan surrendered sovereignty with no beneficiary following World War II. This is NOT domestic, but international. According to the UN Charter, the Taiwanese people have the right to self-determination. Your "legal" theories are getting more and more desparate all the time.

You want to argue this again, as I said go say that to the customs agent next time you leave the country. Reality is quite a bitch.

There are several instances around the world where one government occupies and controls territory that does not legally belong to it. I went to East Timor more than 15 years ago. Though Indonesia controlled who entered and left, it was not legally part of Indonesia.

What a lie, plz show me when and where I've ever stated that Chiang Kaishek was my hero, his son I have high appraisal for, but himself asside from his historical significance of fighting against Imperialist Japan and preventing red china from invading Taiwan he has little praise in my book.

He did not prevent the ChiComs from coming in, the US 7th fleet did. Chiang was a murderous dictator whom the Pan-Blues just love to get on their knees and adulate to this very day.

Japan where the officials today are still elected by means of back room talks? Korea? come on you have got to be kidding, they are far from democracies. If you count Japan as a democracy then hey, Taiwan even under Martial law would qualify as a democracy.

Japan is a parliamentary democracy. The people vote for their parliamentarians and they choose the prime minister, just like in Britain and Canada. Freedom House and other international organizations regard both Japan and Korea as democracies.

But then none of those countries state clearly without lies that they are not under a quasi martial law.

I think you are living with blinders on, you are so full of hatred.

But oh, you are so full of blind partisan hatred that anything that gives credit to the pan blue is "irrelevant" in your opinion.

And you are not full of partisan hatred? Give me a break. I hate the Blues, and the reasons for that are numerous.

Where did France Aquire the Louisiana territory from? Which treaty did Napoleon sign with the native americans to aquire that land from? Again this ridiculous double standard.

For the fourth (or fifth time), I said that to transfer a territory from one STATE to another STATE, a treaty is required. Which STATE did Louisiana belong to before the French arrived? You obviously know nothing about the legal concept of 'prescription.'

Now why in the world would they do that?

Perhaps because in China's warped view of the universe, this is the only way they would accept "legitimate" trade with other states?

One that has failed quite miserably at the subject matter then. Oh wow, a contributer to WIki, hey so am I so what?

You are so full of it, as usual. I had a minor in Chinese history and got an A in all of my courses in the subject. I also studied Chinese history in graduate school and still read books on Chinese history to this day. I have cited historians from numerous countries (including China) supporting what I have said. You have spouted nothing more than the Sinosnob version of history.

No need to? lol, like I said before, you've clearly no idea what you are talking about. Simply a half bottle of vinegar.

As a soveriegn state, Vietnam had the right to sign a treaty with whomever they wanted. I suppose Calicut had to notify China before signing a treaty in the 1410s under your characterization? Vietnam was FIERCELY independent of China. They had defeated the Chinese when they invaded during the reign of Zhu Di. They emerged from a civil war and were once again a unified kingdom in the early 19th century. Then again, anyone calling Saigon the capital of Vietnam really displays that they know little of which they speak.

Sarcasm does nothing to justify nor validate your position. My position was clear - you're lying.

What am I lying about? You can't make a point without a personal insult. Your posts are full of them. You have a big bark, but your a little short in the bite department.

sad how you can't respond without editing each of my lines.

Sad how you can't respond without an insult or even with any points to back them up.

:roll: Further sarcasms and denials, you can't make an argument without going off into a tangent and avoiding the points I've made. Funny coming from an egocentric religious nut whom defends the likes of Falwell.

So, the Tang had soveriegn rights in Japan? You are a nut! BTW, I have not been defending Fallwell. I said I am not a big fan of him. Then again, what can I expect from someone who claims that the Chinese language has progressed with virtually zero change in 5000 years. What a hoot!

:lamo math isn't your strong suit I suppose, neither it seems is truth.

All you have is rhetoric to cover up the fact that all you can do is bluster through posts with almost no evidence to back up what you say and what little evidence you do present is half-baked lies from the Sino-snob manual of history.

You're just all over the place. Speaking of facts, tell again where was it before Chen took office?

It was over 10,000, but it had already started dropping before he took office. Again, it was part of a GLOBAL sell off. Your dishonesty is telling here.

Ahhh typical partisan bullshit, just like the other neocons now screaming why aren't the dems doing more today even though in disregard to the fact that the president has veto and it takes a lot to clean up the mess of such a pathetic administration - applicable to both countries.

What is partisan about pointing out the fact that the KMT are now SIX MONTHS late in passing the 2007 budget. The do-nothing legislature is good at ... well... doing nothing.

Now why doesn't the pan blue do something? Perhaps it has something to do with the ear marks of each of these bills and the amount of kick back involved with the administration as well as these bills allowing further power to the administration to scream its war mongering cries of independence along with arrogant individuals like yourself.

Nope, it is because the Pan-Blues can't accept that running elections is an ADMINISTRATIVE function of government and thus is under the EXECUTIVE YUAN, and not the legislative.

What has your beloved DPP done? What has Chen done? What has the executive branch with the actual power done? NOTHING

The Executive Yuan has very little power in Taiwan. Most of the power is in the Legislature. One of the few areas (outside of foreign affairs) under the control of the executive yuan is highway construction, which has made big gains over the past several years. The expressway construction over the past five years has really helped traffic around the country. How about the High Speed Rail? Have you been on it? It is really nice.

Nikkei? Japan's economy burst has little to do with the dot come bust, and far more to do with it's own bubble economy burst after the 80's. NASDAQ? Come on be honest where's the Dow? S&P? All have mostly recovered from the dot com bust. It's funny how you state all markets are different and here are now making such a contrast.

Then why did the Nikkei also take a heavy hit with the dot com bust? The NASDAQ was about the most tech-heavy index. It is an illustration that the amount of tech in the index has some correlation to how much the fall was. Taiwan is a tech heavy index, thus it was more open to a heavier fall with the dot com bust.

With "contributors" as yourself who conscew the truth I'm not surprised. However:
Yep all things considered just as good. Can't get over it can you?
[/SIZE]

You can't manage to go two minutes without creating a strawman and throwing an insult, can you. I challenge you to find any of my contributions on Wikipedia what was controversial (other than a proposal I made to an entry regarding Chinese Taipei to which we reached a compromise that was praised by outsiders.) You create strawmen, but they are easily torched.

Taiyu as I said is a non-existent misleading term that references to a populous dialect on the island that excludes the various other dialects spoken.

Taiyu is NON-EXISTANT?!?!? REALLY?!?!? When was the last time you were in Taiwan?

You already got your *** nailed on this one and now your just grasping at irrelevancies. So let me ask you then, according to this new interpretation by you, what then is shanghaihua - a place you've claimed to have lived in for so long. Exactly as I've stated before, you insisted on a western interpretation on something that is anything but. You've nothing but a half bottle of vinegar, loud yet lacking sufficient substance.

What is "zhongguohua"? What is "yueyu"? What is "meiyu"? What is "yinihua"? What is "hanguohua"? The list goes on and on. As for the "western interpretation" of language, since we are debating in English, it would seem that the English concept of "language" and "dialect" would be the default. You can't stomach the fact that I have you on this. You can't face the truth.

 

[jfuh]

What double standard. I was being absolutely CONSISTENT. A treaty was required to transfer de jure soveriegnty of Alsasce and Lorraine back to France following WWI. According to your theory, that shouldn't have been necessary as they were recovering lost territory. However, according to international law, a legally binding treaty was required to transfer the territory, just as it was required in the case of Taiwan, though in this case, there was none. There is no double standard here. Simply a case of you not understanding the legal principles involved.



It is not a domestic issue. Taiwan was part of Japan. Japan surrendered sovereignty with no beneficiary following World War II. This is NOT domestic, but international. According to the UN Charter, the Taiwanese people have the right to self-determination. Your "legal" theories are getting more and more desparate all the time.



There are several instances around the world where one government occupies and controls territory that does not legally belong to it. I went to East Timor more than 15 years ago. Though Indonesia controlled who entered and left, it was not legally part of Indonesia.



He did not prevent the ChiComs from coming in, the US 7th fleet did. Chiang was a murderous dictator whom the Pan-Blues just love to get on their knees and adulate to this very day.



Japan is a parliamentary democracy. The people vote for their parliamentarians and they choose the prime minister, just like in Britain and Canada. Freedom House and other international organizations regard both Japan and Korea as democracies.



I think you are living with blinders on, you are so full of hatred.



And you are not full of partisan hatred? Give me a break. I hate the Blues, and the reasons for that are numerous.



For the fourth (or fifth time), I said that to transfer a territory from one STATE to another STATE, a treaty is required. Which STATE did Louisiana belong to before the French arrived? You obviously know nothing about the legal concept of 'prescription.'



Perhaps because in China's warped view of the universe, this is the only way they would accept "legitimate" trade with other states?



You are so full of it, as usual. I had a minor in Chinese history and got an A in all of my courses in the subject. I also studied Chinese history in graduate school and still read books on Chinese history to this day. I have cited historians from numerous countries (including China) supporting what I have said. You have spouted nothing more than the Sinosnob version of history.



As a soveriegn state, Vietnam had the right to sign a treaty with whomever they wanted. I suppose Calicut had to notify China before signing a treaty in the 1410s under your characterization? Vietnam was FIERCELY independent of China. They had defeated the Chinese when they invaded during the reign of Zhu Di. They emerged from a civil war and were once again a unified kingdom in the early 19th century. Then again, anyone calling Saigon the capital of Vietnam really displays that they know little of which they speak.



What am I lying about? You can't make a point without a personal insult. Your posts are full of them. You have a big bark, but your a little short in the bite department.



Sad how you can't respond without an insult or even with any points to back them up.



So, the Tang had soveriegn rights in Japan? You are a nut! BTW, I have not been defending Fallwell. I said I am not a big fan of him. Then again, what can I expect from someone who claims that the Chinese language has progressed with virtually zero change in 5000 years. What a hoot!



All you have is rhetoric to cover up the fact that all you can do is bluster through posts with almost no evidence to back up what you say and what little evidence you do present is half-baked lies from the Sino-snob manual of history.



It was over 10,000, but it had already started dropping before he took office. Again, it was part of a GLOBAL sell off. Your dishonesty is telling here.




What is partisan about pointing out the fact that the KMT are now SIX MONTHS late in passing the 2007 budget. The do-nothing legislature is good at ... well... doing nothing.



Nope, it is because the Pan-Blues can't accept that running elections is an ADMINISTRATIVE function of government and thus is under the EXECUTIVE YUAN, and not the legislative.



The Executive Yuan has very little power in Taiwan. Most of the power is in the Legislature. One of the few areas (outside of foreign affairs) under the control of the executive yuan is highway construction, which has made big gains over the past several years. The expressway construction over the past five years has really helped traffic around the country. How about the High Speed Rail? Have you been on it? It is really nice.



Then why did the Nikkei also take a heavy hit with the dot com bust? The NASDAQ was about the most tech-heavy index. It is an illustration that the amount of tech in the index has some correlation to how much the fall was. Taiwan is a tech heavy index, thus it was more open to a heavier fall with the dot com bust.



You can't manage to go two minutes without creating a strawman and throwing an insult, can you. I challenge you to find any of my contributions on Wikipedia what was controversial (other than a proposal I made to an entry regarding Chinese Taipei to which we reached a compromise that was praised by outsiders.) You create strawmen, but they are easily torched.



Taiyu is NON-EXISTANT?!?!? REALLY?!?!? When was the last time you were in Taiwan?



What is "zhongguohua"? What is "yueyu"? What is "meiyu"? What is "yinihua"? What is "hanguohua"? The list goes on and on. As for the "western interpretation" of language, since we are debating in English, it would seem that the English concept of "language" and "dialect" would be the default. You can't stomach the fact that I have you on this. You can't face the truth.

:violin it's all you neocons can do, claim a victory when there is none.
Around and around and around. Mixed in with more personal attacks. It's clear you have no idea whatsoever you are talking about and the only method you have of debate is through double standard, editing and reading out of context, aka lies. It's quite pointless to discuss any further, I've accomplished exactly what I've come in to do and that is to expose you as the partisan hack with no idea what they are talking about - something it seems the self-proclaimed "very conservative" members of this forum have in common. Your *** had been had since post 77 and there you go dancing around with that sorry signature of some truth when there is nothing of the sort in any of your posts.
You scream and yell Independence yet do not even have the guts to put your money where your mouth is by retaining your runaway pass in the event of military conflict occurring. REality is a bitch, but Taiwan is the ROC. By your rationalities than the Pescadorians should be a separate independent entity as they don't see themselves as Taiwanese either. Those of Kinmen and Matsu should just be left to fend for themselves. You claim to have a "love" for Chinese, yet you show nothing but a complete hatred with such terms of warped chinese views and other clear examples of partisan hatred. You continuosly bring up SF treaty but continuously ignore the Treaty of Taipei. If you are such a scholar than you would acknowledge that the Treaty of Taipei nullifies all treaties prior to between Japan and China, which means that the treaty of 1895 was nulled - hence again reality is such a bitch.
To the thread which you yourself had feverishly derailed, Annete and Chen da bian are both scum of the nation - you and your separatists spewing nonesense and propaganda have been the very cause of a stagnation in Taiwan and may very well lead to the complete annihilation of the ROC. Fortunately come March of next year you and your bunch will be nothing but an irrelevancy after the return to normalcy.

 

[ludahai]

:violin it's all you neocons can do, claim a victory when there is none.

Hah, right. After I refute you point by point, you come with this, leaving nearly all of them unanswered. Typical of the pan-Blue mentality.

Around and around and around. Mixed in with more personal attacks.

Talk about being a hypocrite. How many personal attacks do you think you laid in that post from a couple of days ago.

It's clear you have no idea whatsoever you are talking about and the only method you have of debate is through double standard, editing and reading out of context, aka lies.

You are the one taking things out of context. I have cited credible sources from a number of historians and Linguists. How many international law classes have you ever taken? How many linguistics classes? Obviously NONE based on your ignorance of both subjects.

It's quite pointless to discuss any further, I've accomplished exactly what I've come in to do and that is to expose you as the partisan hack with no idea what they are talking about -

Yeah, right. I have beaten you to a pulp on every point. So much that you simply don't dare to address the points anymore. You have done little more than dance around them anyway.

something it seems the self-proclaimed "very conservative" members of this forum have in common. Your *** had been had since post 77 and there you go dancing around with that sorry signature of some truth when there is nothing of the sort in any of your posts.

Yeah, right. Whatever. You are so clearly beaten that you simply can't accept it.

You scream and yell Independence yet do not even have the guts to put your money where your mouth is by retaining your runaway pass in the event of military conflict occurring.

Actually, I don't scream independence. I scream "self determination." I am willing to accept the decision of the Taiwanese people in a vote free of undue coercion. Are you? Obviously NOT!

REality is a bitch, but Taiwan is the ROC. By your rationalities than the Pescadorians should be a separate independent entity as they don't see themselves as Taiwanese either.

Nope. Again, you don't understand. The Pescadores were ceded by China in 1895.

Those of Kinmen and Matsu should just be left to fend for themselves.

Technically, both are part of Fujian. Neither was ceded in the 1895 treaty. See, I am being wonderfully consistent.

You claim to have a "love" for Chinese, yet you show nothing but a complete hatred with such terms of warped chinese views and other clear examples of partisan hatred.

My partisan hatred is reserved for ChiComs and their Blue lackeys here in Taiwan.

You continuosly bring up SF treaty but continuously ignore the Treaty of Taipei. If you are such a scholar than you would acknowledge that the Treaty of Taipei nullifies all treaties prior to between Japan and China, which means that the treaty of 1895 was nulled - hence again reality is such a bitch.

Ha, ha. Except that the San Francisco Peace Treaty was already ratified and executed. Japan had already surrendered control of Taiwan. You can't reassign sovereignty over a territory that you no longer have de jure sovereignty over. Territory transfer was already executed, thus does not come under the scope of the Treaty of Taipei. You have also ignored the fact that the ROC required a legislative act to change national boundaries. Where is the Legislative Yuan law making Taiwan part of the ROC?

To the thread which you yourself had feverishly derailed, Annete and Chen da bian are both scum of the nation - you and your separatists spewing nonesense and propaganda have been the very cause of a stagnation in Taiwan and may very well lead to the complete annihilation of the ROC. Fortunately come March of next year you and your bunch will be nothing but an irrelevancy after the return to normalcy.

The cause of stagnation in Taiwan is the do-nothing pan-Blue controlled Legislative Yuan. The political crisis in 2004 caused by pan-blue violence and thuggery did not help either.

 

[jfuh]

Hah, right. After I refute you point by point, you come with this, leaving nearly all of them unanswered. Typical of the pan-Blue mentality.

See there you go again, taking credit for lies.

Talk about being a hypocrite. How many personal attacks do you think you laid in that post from a couple of days ago.

Calling you a liar is not an attack, it's merely the truth.

You are the one taking things out of context. I have cited credible sources from a number of historians and Linguists. How many international law classes have you ever taken? How many linguistics classes? Obviously NONE based on your ignorance of both subjects.

As have I, so what? You're trying to claim of a linguistic variance for your pro-independence stance which is completely non-existent.

Yeah, right. I have beaten you to a pulp on every point. So much that you simply don't dare to address the points anymore. You have done little more than dance around them anyway.

un huh

Yeah, right. Whatever. You are so clearly beaten that you simply can't accept it.

How many times have you used that word now? beaten? Sad you can't give any honest debate but beat around the bushes with irrelevant tangents.

Actually, I don't scream independence. I scream "self determination." I am willing to accept the decision of the Taiwanese people in a vote free of undue coercion. Are you? Obviously NOT!

Semantics; your using the exact same bullshit that the administration spews. The last time the administration had a "referendum" it lost, but we all know how you're going to turn it around into some technicality to explain off from the truth that it did not pass.

Nope. Again, you don't understand. The Pescadores were ceded by China in 1895.

And then by your ridiculous nonsense they would be independent of Taiwan main-island.

Technically, both are part of Fujian. Neither was ceded in the 1895 treaty. See, I am being wonderfully consistent.

Both are ROC.

My partisan hatred is reserved for ChiComs and their Blue lackeys here in Taiwan.

:lamo that you see them as one and alike is exactly your problem, their only common ground is that they both see Taiwan island as part of the greater China. You deny this plain simple fact.

Ha, ha. Except that the San Francisco Peace Treaty was already ratified and executed. Japan had already surrendered control of Taiwan. You can't reassign sovereignty over a territory that you no longer have de jure sovereignty over. Territory transfer was already executed, thus does not come under the scope of the Treaty of Taipei. You have also ignored the fact that the ROC required a legislative act to change national boundaries. Where is the Legislative Yuan law making Taiwan part of the ROC?

Let's see 1895 before or after? Nullification of all previous treaties means that the SF treaty is irrelevant. Not to mention within the treaty Japan recognizes the ROC as the legitimate sovereign power over Taiwan - as well as every single government in the world. You and your independent nutties are the only ones that see otherwise. As I've said, you really want to proclaim independence then do so in arms over there in kinmen or Matsu. Or you can complain to the customs agent.

The cause of stagnation in Taiwan is the do-nothing pan-Blue controlled Legislative Yuan. The political crisis in 2004 caused by pan-blue violence and thuggery did not help either.

:lamo right, Chen da bian being a total idiot that has waned off foreign investment has absolutely nothing to do with it.
The problem with you "very conservative" neocons is that you're always fingerpointing the fault at others. Then when push comes to shove you make apologetic overtures to your own crowd. Doesn't matter where you guys travel to it's all the same.