who is the worse president in our history?

[ludahai]

Keep on spining.

The only one I see spinning here is YOU, the King of Spin himself.

His inability to get his supporters to back him is pretty much defeat. Technicalities on terminology is irrelevent. If he's so popular as you claim, shouldn't have been a problem. Damn the KMT is just too powerful.
Talk about :spin:

You don't know what you are talking about. Even if EVERY SINGLE person who voted for President Chen voted YES on the referendum, that still doesn't add up to fifty percent of the entire electorate because only 83% voted. About 45% of the electorate DID vote in both referenda, and in both, an overwhelming majority voted yes. However, since a majority of the electorate didn't vote in the referenda due to the KMT boycott, the vote was void, NOT rejected. There is a fundamental difference between the two. Why am I not surprised that you are too blind to your partisan differences to see that? Technicalities in terminology are NOT irrelevant and YOU are the one who is spinning. I am merely laying down the facts.

Really? Strange how it doesn't appear so in all the news reports that I see. Not a single one showing any success now in either of those countries. Only more and more failures and an incompetant administration trying to cover its ***.

Well, I believe you to be wrong on both counts, but only time will truly tell on them.

wow, you really don't understand the concept of tu quo quoi huh? Clinton did it so it's ok now? NO warrent? Illegal.

We aren't talking about wiretaps, we are talking about a PHONE NUMBER DIRECTORY for goodness sake.

 

[jfuh]

The only one I see spinning here is YOU, the King of Spin himself.

So it's to grade school level name calling?

You don't know what you are talking about. Even if EVERY SINGLE person who voted for President Chen voted YES on the referendum, that still doesn't add up to fifty percent of the entire electorate because only 83% voted. About 45% of the electorate DID vote in both referenda, and in both, an overwhelming majority voted yes. However, since a majority of the electorate didn't vote in the referenda due to the KMT boycott, the vote was void, NOT rejected. There is a fundamental difference between the two. Why am I not surprised that you are too blind to your partisan differences to see that? Technicalities in terminology are NOT irrelevant and YOU are the one who is spinning. I am merely laying down the facts.

Emphasis in bold. Fact is not everyone that voted for the criminal Chen voted for the referendum that he wanted passed. It was completely defeated regardless.

Well, I believe you to be wrong on both counts, but only time will truly tell on them.

I only wish I am wrong.

We aren't talking about wiretaps, we are talking about a PHONE NUMBER DIRECTORY for goodness sake.

Thus far that is only what has come out. You will recall that just not so long ago, Bush claimed that only those who were involved with AQ or those that are contacting AQ were being "tracked", how it was done he didn't say. He did say we had nothing to worry about.
Now it comes out that millions of americans were being tracked without warrent so they set up a pattern.
However without a warrent, this is in clear violation of FISA and the telecommunications act.

 

[ludahai]

Emphasis in bold. Fact is not everyone that voted for the criminal Chen voted for the referendum that he wanted passed. It was completely defeated regardless.

I will ask you this one more time. Of the people who voted in the referendum, did a majority vote FOR or AGAINST and by what margin? Are you CAPABLE of answering that question?

After lunch, I will debunk your latest post in the Pinyin thread. Your reaching is getting pretty desperate.

 

[jfuh]

I will ask you this one more time. Of the people who voted in the referendum, did a majority vote FOR or AGAINST and by what margin? Are you CAPABLE of answering that question?

After lunch, I will debunk your latest post in the Pinyin thread. Your reaching is getting pretty desperate.

To answer your question, yes there were more the said yes per the vote then those who said no. Yet it's irrelevent because it was DEFEATED. Don't quite understand that do you?

Want more on why the arms are not being purchased?
Source 1
Source 2
The policy of Chen has resulted the complete disgrace of the government of the ROC. Just look at how he coward around on the trip that he wanted to "land" in the US.

He's not even a president, he's simply a corrupt thug. As are the remainder of his DPP party today.
Yet you are part of that 5.8% that still approve of him
Source
Yes ppl, that's right, the current president of ROC aka Taiwan has an approval rating of 5.8% not 25 or 35.8%; 5.8%.
Lu likes to make this out as just partisan bickery of one party portraying the other poorly but no, 5.8% and he's part of the 6 ppl out of 100 that approve of Chen and his party. Oh yes, very representative of the citizens of Taiwan.:roll:
You've no clue at all do you Lu.

 

[ludahai]

To answer your question, yes there were more the said yes per the vote then those who said no. Yet it's irrelevent because it was DEFEATED. Don't quite understand that do you?

You just make me bawl over laughing. According to Taiwan's referendum law, there are THREE possible outcomes to a referendum.

PASS - Majority of people vote a majority of those voting in favor.
This didn't happen because although a majority of those who voted in fact voted in favor, a majority of the electorate didn't vote.

DEFEAT - Majority of people vote with a majority of those voting against.
This didn't happen either because a majority DIDN'T vote AND a majority of whose who voted voted IN FAVOR of the referenda.

INVALID VOTE - Fewer than half of hte people vote in the referendum. This indicates that the vote is in fact, NON-BINDING.

This is according to the law as passed by the KMT CONTROLLED Legislative Yuan.

Many people who wanted to vote in the referendum didn't for several reasons. KMT passed rules did not permit workers in polling places to point people out to the referenda polling station - when people left the polling station by mistake, they were NOT readmitted.

I know of at least THREE instances where parents of voters WITHHELD their referenda voting tickets from their children in an effort to prevent them from voting in the referenda. In all three cases, it wasn't until AFTER they voted that they were informed that they didn't need them.

The KMT pulled out every dirty trick possible to make sure the vote didn't succeed, and it worked. However, according the law, it wasn't defeated either.

 

[jfuh]

You just make me bawl over laughing. According to Taiwan's referendum law, there are THREE possible outcomes to a referendum.

PASS - Majority of people vote a majority of those voting in favor.
This didn't happen because although a majority of those who voted in fact voted in favor, a majority of the electorate didn't vote.

DEFEAT - Majority of people vote with a majority of those voting against.
This didn't happen either because a majority DIDN'T vote AND a majority of whose who voted voted IN FAVOR of the referenda.

INVALID VOTE - Fewer than half of hte people vote in the referendum. This indicates that the vote is in fact, NON-BINDING.

This is according to the law as passed by the KMT CONTROLLED Legislative Yuan.

Many people who wanted to vote in the referendum didn't for several reasons. KMT passed rules did not permit workers in polling places to point people out to the referenda polling station - when people left the polling station by mistake, they were NOT readmitted.

I know of at least THREE instances where parents of voters WITHHELD their referenda voting tickets from their children in an effort to prevent them from voting in the referenda. In all three cases, it wasn't until AFTER they voted that they were informed that they didn't need them.

The KMT pulled out every dirty trick possible to make sure the vote didn't succeed, and it worked. However, according the law, it wasn't defeated either.

You can roll over laughing all you want to. By law it isn't technically a defeat. However in reality it was a defeat. Such as the difference between pleading guilty, not guilty and no contest.
Requiring an absolute majority of the ppls of taiwan to approve a referendum is hardly a dirty trick, but the true respect for such important issues.
Otherwise Chen would've declared himself supreme ruler and maybe even imposed martial law through further provacation of China. Something you clearly support.

So why do you continue to support the dirtiest party and criminal of them all? An administration with only 5.8% approval rating

 

[ludahai]

You can roll over laughing all you want to. By law it isn't technically a defeat. However in reality it was a defeat. Such as the difference between pleading guilty, not guilty and no contest.

Comparison doesn't work. The KMT has been claiming that the people rejected arms sales in a referendum. That isn't true and you just admitted it. It is simply a cynical ploy by the traitorous KMT.

Requiring an absolute majority of the ppls of taiwan to approve a referendum is hardly a dirty trick, but the true respect for such important issues.

That part isn't a dirty trick, it is common in other democratic countries. It is everything else that the KMTdid surrounding the referendum. Very cynical ploy because they know if a majority DID vote, the referendum would have passed.

Otherwise Chen would've declared himself supreme ruler and maybe even imposed martial law through further provacation of China. Something you clearly support.

I support the Taiwanese people having the right to a referendum that they were DENIED by the KMT in 1952 when they illegally assumed sovereignty over the island.

So why do you continue to support the dirtiest party and criminal of them all? An administration with only 5.8% approval rating

Where is the support for Chen in these posts? It is opposition to the KMT, which has the longest criminal history in Modern Taiwan history.

 

[dragonslayer]

In my opinion the worst presidents in history, were the current George W. Bush, George Bush Sr, Jimmy Carter, and Herbert Hoover.


George W. Bush is the first President to start a totally unprovoked war and lie like Satan to get support for the war. Bush's policies are aggression and terror based, and his financial policies are against the American People.

Watch the news, domestic spying, BS policies for the border, why did Bush cut funding for the Border Patrol in the first place?

Everyday, Bush proves over and over what an A** he is, and how small his regard for the American people really is.

We need to get the hell out of Iraq and start taking care of America. We need to start taxing the Multinational Corporations and the Idle Rich who do nothing for America. Bush is one of the Idle useless rich.

 

[ludahai]

Watch the news, domestic spying, BS policies for the border, why did Bush cut funding for the Border Patrol in the first place?

Source? IF he is sincere in training 6000 more agents in the next two years, great. If not, then I will join the chrous of criticism.

Everyday, Bush proves over and over what an A** he is, and how small his regard for the American people really is.

Time will tell on this particular issue.

We need to get the hell out of Iraq and start taking care of America. We need to start taxing the Multinational Corporations and the Idle Rich who do nothing for America. Bush is one of the Idle useless rich.

Class warfare. Standard fare for the Left.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

My new Motto is,

Bush is listening,
USE BIG WORDS

You, radicals just don't get it, Bush is the worse president we have ever had. He is run daily on a leash by his corporate masters.
I think he needs to go back to obedience school, and remember his oath to serve America, and the Constitution.

Okay. Some reasons why Bush is a bad president (he's by no means the worst, and you haven't said a word that even starts to support your claim):

1) He's continued spending my tax dollars on all those stupid things liberals like, like the NEA, the NEH, etc. We could be saving hundreds of billions by cutting out all those programs that don't belong that other liberal presidents put into place.

2) He's on the same side of the border control issues as the Democrats. The south side of the border.

3) Taxes are still too high.

4) Old geezers will get to steal drug money from their children now.

5) Not a damn thing has been done to privatize socialist security. Complete privatization is the necessary goal, but the government can't even discuss partial privatization, mainly because Bush won't support the idea.

6) He's screwed up the war in Iraq. The only good thing about what he's done there is that the Democrats would have made it worse.

Frankly, our boy Bush is an average president. He's done nothing fantastic, he's done nothing disastrous.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Isn't it funny. Clinton administration was so careful not allow the sale of what you are talking about. This Sale was closely moderated by the Republican House, the Senate, and the media. This sale was pushed by a couple of huqe corporations for profit, and much of what they wanted to sell was not allowed. If this dangerous missle technology was sold, it was sold, under the table by the companies through foreign subsideraries. The Corporate Kings are not interested in loyalty to the USA, they are interested in Profits and power.
.
Remember that Clinton may have been reponsive to the power of Corporate Kings, but only a fool would not have been. Clinton did manage to moderate the sales and keep the worst from China. Today these same companies are now part of the of the companies that take Bush for his daily walks and run the obediance school he attended. Bush lets the Corporate Kings do anything. Clinton at least apposed their unlimited power.

Under Bush, we could have sold even our old chemical weapons and our souls to potential enemies. Remember under the Bush, freedom of the Press has been limited, and the hush hush hush policies control everything.

What was sold was the MIRV technology, which is EXACTLY what they needed to make their Long Shot rockets into Long March rockets. And that transfer was done by Loral Corp under Bernie Schwarz, who paid the DNC millions of dollars in donations for the privelege of selling that technology.

Clinton enabled the Chinese to take our W-88 warhead technology, which is a hell of lot more important than some old chemweps.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Please enlighten me on just what Bush has done to bring freedom and security to 50 million ppl when taking away freedoms from Americans?

How about if you enlighten us on exactly which freedom's Americans have lost?

What exactly, is it that you cannot do today that you were able to do when we had the Rapist in the White House? Be specific, and list personal examples.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Ownership of the government.

You could own the government before, but now you can't? You've lost that freedom somehow? Must have been because of the stock market crash. I don't know anyone with enough money to buy the entire government now.

Right to privacy through unwarrented searchs.

Right to privacy...that's defined in the Constitution where? Specify Article or Amendment, please.

Do you unwarranted searches, or warrantless searches? There's a conceptual difference I'm not sure you're capable of perceiving, but it's there.

Oh, and the most invasive of the searches under the PATRIOT Act aren't "warrantless" seaches, but secret seaches.

I'm getting to the end of the thread, but have you bothered to actually list anything that wasn't already happening before Bush took office yet?

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

the worst president in history is:........<drum roll>

LYNDON B. JOHNSON!

Come on, Lawrence, give us something to work with here. Explain why you named Mr. Tonkin Gulf to the Nadir Spot.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

The KMT pulled out every dirty trick possible to make sure the vote didn't succeed, and it worked. However, according the law, it wasn't defeated either.

If it isn't "defeated" can it be re-submitted for a new vote?

 

[jfuh]

Comparison doesn't work. The KMT has been claiming that the people rejected arms sales in a referendum. That isn't true and you just admitted it. It is simply a cynical ploy by the traitorous KMT.

That part isn't a dirty trick, it is common in other democratic countries. It is everything else that the KMTdid surrounding the referendum. Very cynical ploy because they know if a majority DID vote, the referendum would have passed.

You portray the KMT as this cynical tyrannal party, yet you neglect two facts.
#1 the KMT is not the governing party
#2 The current governing body, Chen's DPP has an approval rating of 5.8%, which ironically you are a part of. That says something in itself on your bias.

I support the Taiwanese people having the right to a referendum that they were DENIED by the KMT in 1952 when they illegally assumed sovereignty over the island.

Wow, another irrelevent tangent. If we're going to get into sovereignty again you have yet to tell me who signed over the America to the European colonists.

Back on topic, if the KMT is so bad as you are making them out to be, why do they have such a solid high approval rating right now?

Where is the support for Chen in these posts? It is opposition to the KMT, which has the longest criminal history in Modern Taiwan history.

Where is the support for Chen? Oh wait lets see, could it be that party flag that you tout so proudly?

 

[-Demosthenes-]

Gee, why is it that the complexities of international law are simply beyond you?

That in non-white countries to be held to a treaty against their constitution but not in white countries?

 

[ludahai]

If it isn't "defeated" can it be re-submitted for a new vote?

Unclear, likely need an opinion from the High Court. The KMT passed referendum law is quiet on it. However, while the KMT insisted that a law was needed in the first place, I would argue that it wasn't as the right of referendum was in the CONSTITUTION that the KMT forced on Taiwan in 1949. Strange that a law was necessary to make a constitutional "right" possible.

 

[ludahai]

You portray the KMT as this cynical tyrannal party, yet you neglect two facts.
#1 the KMT is not the governing party
#2 The current governing body, Chen's DPP has an approval rating of 5.8%, which ironically you are a part of. That says something in itself on your bias.

#1 The KMT along with the PFP make up the majority in the Legislative Yuan, which makes the laws, including the referendum law.
#2 I am NOT a part of the DPP, and Chen's approval rating is NOT indicative of the rating of other members of the DPP. I support the DPP and TSU because they are the only parties that support the right of Taiwan's people to decide their future through referenda. If the KMT would drop their opposition, I would drop my opposition to them.

Wow, another irrelevent tangent. If we're going to get into sovereignty again you have yet to tell me who signed over the America to the European colonists.

Completely irrelevant. China surrendered sovereignty to Taiwan in 1895. They never regained it.

Back on topic, if the KMT is so bad as you are making them out to be, why do they have such a solid high approval rating right now?

Perhaps because the media is gushing all over the KMT and hiding their sins, which are many. A legislator in the PFP (KMT's legislative allies) was convicted for his role in the raming of police lines in Kaohsiung last year. The pro-KMT media hails him as a martyr!

Where is the support for Chen? Oh wait lets see, could it be that party flag that you tout so proudly?

HUH?!?!? Are you that blind? That is NOT the DPP party flag. That is the World Taiwanese COngress Flag. The DPP party flag looks quite different, albeit with the same color scheme. You know, you make so many mistakes of basic fact, how can ANYONE take you seriously?

 

[ludahai]

That in non-white countries to be held to a treaty against their constitution but not in white countries?

You completely miss the point of international law. TAKE a class and actually learn something about the subject.

 

[-Demosthenes-]

You completely miss the point of international law. TAKE a class and actually learn something about the subject.

Well then just tell me. I might be missing something, big deal. But at this point I have the opinion that I'm right.

 

[jfuh]

#1 The KMT along with the PFP make up the majority in the Legislative Yuan, which makes the laws, including the referendum law.

True, the KMT and PFP make up the majority in the legislation, but they are the opposition, not the ruling party - my argument.

#2 I am NOT a part of the DPP, and Chen's approval rating is NOT indicative of the rating of other members of the DPP. I support the DPP and TSU because they are the only parties that support the right of Taiwan's people to decide their future through referenda. If the KMT would drop their opposition, I would drop my opposition to them.

I didn't say you were a part of thier party, I specifically said you were part of that 5.8% approval group.
Perhaps you should then renounce your US citizenship as the US is also part of the opposition for referenda on Taiwan independence from China.
Such referenda would be like asking Hawaii declaring independence from the US - just rediculous.

Completely irrelevant. China surrendered sovereignty to Taiwan in 1895. They never regained it.

Bullshit. Cairo - 1943, Postdam -1945, San Francisco 1951, and finally Treaty of Taipei - 1952.
The Treaty of Taipei acknowledged the terms of the Treaty of San Francisco in which Japan renounced all the rights, nominal rights, and claims concerning Taiwan and Penghu. It also nullified all previous treaties made between China and Japan, implicitly repealing the 1895 Treaty of Shimonoseki.

For the purposes of the present Treaty, nationals of the Republic of China shall be deemed to include all the inhabitants and former inhabitants of Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores) and their descendants who are of the Chinese nationality in accordance with the laws and regulations which have been or may hereafter be enforced by the Republic of China in Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores). - Article 10

Then, in the Exchange of Notes following the Treaty, the Japanese delegate Isao Kawada specifically defined the Chinese government which the Japan government was signing the Treaty with:

In regard to the Treaty of Peace between Japan and the Republic of China signed this day, I have the honor to refer, on behalf of my Government, to the understanding reached between us that the terms of the present Treaty shall, in respect of the Republic of China, be applicable to all the territories which are now, or which may hereafter be, under the control of its Government.

Perhaps because the media is gushing all over the KMT and hiding their sins, which are many. A legislator in the PFP (KMT's legislative allies) was convicted for his role in the raming of police lines in Kaohsiung last year. The pro-KMT media hails him as a martyr!

By some claims of ppl in the US the media is liberal, yet even the exposure of the illegal act of the NSA surveillences Bush's approval hovers at around 29%. Chen's government is at 5.8%.

HUH?!?!? Are you that blind? That is NOT the DPP party flag. That is the World Taiwanese COngress Flag. The DPP party flag looks quite different, albeit with the same color scheme. You know, you make so many mistakes of basic fact, how can ANYONE take you seriously?

For something like this

being the DPP flag vs what you have

The difference is too insignificant for me to pay any attention to. Afterall, your agenda is the same as that of the DPP and you do indeed support the DPP and or pan green.

 

[ludahai]

Well then just tell me. I might be missing something, big deal. But at this point I have the opinion that I'm right.

I have already point out to you that domestic considerations (including suspensions of constitutions) have no consideration under pre-WWII international law. The Texans were dealing with the president of Mexico in good faith, and the fact that Santa Anna suspended the Constitution has ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW. It would treat him and the system IN PLACE AT THAT TIME as legalling binding vis a vis others. Here is the basic concept behind it, if governments didn't have a reasonable expectation that agreements would be honored by successor regimes, then you would simply pummel your opposition into the ground, causing immeasurable additional suffering. I would suggest the works of Hugo Grotius and other scholars of international law as a starting point on the history and development of public international law.

 

[ludahai]

True, the KMT and PFP make up the majority in the legislation, but they are the opposition, not the ruling party - my argument.

I was talking about the rules set up for the holding and passing of referenda, something that was passed by the pan-Blue Legislative Yuan. You seem to have a lack of understanding as to how those rules work.

I

didn't say you were a part of thier party, I specifically said you were part of that 5.8% approval group.
Perhaps you should then renounce your US citizenship as the US is also part of the opposition for referenda on Taiwan independence from China.
Such referenda would be like asking Hawaii declaring independence from the US - just rediculous.

I am not a big supporter of Chen. I have advocated Wang Jinpyng form a middle party that can bring in the disaffected pro-localization forces and KMT voters who are pro-localization, but aren't happy with the pan-Green. He could win on such a platform.

Comparing Hawaii to Taiwan is simply absurd. Did the U.S. sign a treaty giving up soveregnty over Hawaii like China did with Taiwan?

Bullshit. Cairo - 1943, Postdam -1945, San Francisco 1951, and finally Treaty of Taipei - 1952.
The Treaty of Taipei acknowledged the terms of the Treaty of San Francisco in which Japan renounced all the rights, nominal rights, and claims concerning Taiwan and Penghu. It also nullified all previous treaties made between China and Japan, implicitly repealing the 1895 Treaty of Shimonoseki.

The only agreement you cite that is binding here is the San Francisco Peace Treaty. According to public international law, a PEACE TREATY that is legally ratified is necessary to transfer territory from one state to another state. Cairo and Potsdam are merely memos of understanding by heads of government. They do NOT have the force of treaties. The Treaty of Taipei cam AFTER Japan had already surrendered sovereignty of Taiwan. How can Japan sign a treaty regarding Taiwanese sovereignty when it no longer has sovereignty over that territory.

San Francisco is VERY clear on Taiwan. They surrendered sovereignty over Taiwan, but it isn' t assigned to anyone else.

Then, in the Exchange of Notes following the Treaty, the Japanese delegate Isao Kawada specifically defined the Chinese government which the Japan government was signing the Treaty with:

Irrelevant. The San Francisco Peace Treaty is the governing document. The Japanese government recognizes that their say over the status of Taiwan ENDED with the ratification of the SAN FRANCISCO PEACE TREATY according to the Japanese ambassador and one of their staff people that I interviewed while doing research on this topic back in 1996.

By some claims of ppl in the US the media is liberal, yet even the exposure of the illegal act of the NSA surveillences Bush's approval hovers at around 29%. Chen's government is at 5.8%.

Relevance to the question at hand?

For something like this

being the DPP flag vs what you have

The difference is too insignificant for me to pay any attention to. Afterall, your agenda is the same as that of the DPP and you do indeed support the DPP and or pan green.

You can't tell the difference between flags? My only agenda is the upholding of international law and allowing the Taiwanese people they have to choose their own future. WHy are you so opposed to letting the Taiwanese people choose through a referendum?

 

[jfuh]

I was talking about the rules set up for the holding and passing of referenda, something that was passed by the pan-Blue Legislative Yuan. You seem to have a lack of understanding as to how those rules work.

The lack of understanding is that you can not admit that the referendum was utterly defeated because Chen could not get enough support for his agenda. It's just that simple. The rules are set, you want to play, you follow by the rules. I was pissed that Chen got elected, but hey, the rules are set the way they are.

I am not a big supporter of Chen. I have advocated Wang Jinpyng form a middle party that can bring in the disaffected pro-localization forces and KMT voters who are pro-localization, but aren't happy with the pan-Green. He could win on such a platform.

Not on his pro-independence ideology. We don't exactly want war you know.

Comparing Hawaii to Taiwan is simply absurd. Did the U.S. sign a treaty giving up soveregnty over Hawaii like China did with Taiwan?

Did the US sign a treaty with the Native americans to aquire any part of the east coast? Did any colony sign any treaty with the Native Americans to take over thier land?

The only agreement you cite that is binding here is the San Francisco Peace Treaty. According to public international law, a PEACE TREATY that is legally ratified is necessary to transfer territory from one state to another state. Cairo and Potsdam are merely memos of understanding by heads of government. They do NOT have the force of treaties. The Treaty of Taipei cam AFTER Japan had already surrendered sovereignty of Taiwan. How can Japan sign a treaty regarding Taiwanese sovereignty when it no longer has sovereignty over that territory.

Again more proof your partisanship blinds your judgement.
Cairo and Postdam are far more then just memos of understanding by heads of government. The declarations were accepted by Japan in its surrender. Those documents clearly state that Taiwan was to be returned to Chinese sovereignty at the end of World War II.
Did the SF treaty include or not include the nullification of 1895 Treaty of Shimonoseki? If it didn't then by your own guidlines the treaty of Taipei is completely valid. The treaty of Shimonoseki is the only international treaty that binds authority of Japan over Taiwan.
If the SF treaty did indeed include the nullifcation of Shimonoseki, and being that Shimonoseki was signed between China and Japan, guess what? Then Taiwan returns to China. But then seeing as no representative from neither the ROC nor PRC was present at the SF signing because of recognition of who is China. As such there was no official peace treaty between ROC and Japan and as such, 1945 was officially a ceasefire between the two nations. THe Treaty of Taipei thus officially ended the war between Japan and China.
You have absolutely no understanding of this but your partisanship.
It's fun how you always bring up the SF treaty but never bring up the Treaty of Taipei.

San Francisco is VERY clear on Taiwan. They surrendered sovereignty over Taiwan, but it isn' t assigned to anyone else.

Again, BS, see argument above.

Irrelevant. The San Francisco Peace Treaty is the governing document. The Japanese government recognizes that their say over the status of Taiwan ENDED with the ratification of the SAN FRANCISCO PEACE TREATY according to the Japanese ambassador and one of their staff people that I interviewed while doing research on this topic back in 1996.

As the ROC government did not ratify the terms of the SF Peace treaty, the terms are non-binding and cannot alter the validity of the claims by the ROC. Which is why the Taipei peace treaty was required.
The proclamation of Taiwan retrocession in 1945 by the ROC was entirely uncontested. By international laws, which you hold so high over your head, had another party been sovereign over Taiwan, that party would have had a period of years in which to protest, and its failure to do so represents cession of rights.

Relevance to the question at hand?

That was my question. Yes what relevance do medial portrayals have over how the administration really is? I'll cite you an old proverb: "Actions speak louder then words"

You can't tell the difference between flags?

Actually it's that I don't care for the difference in your flags when the agendas are similar.

My only agenda is the upholding of international law and allowing the Taiwanese people they have to choose their own future. WHy are you so opposed to letting the Taiwanese people choose through a referendum?

Why do I not want the nut heads to declare independence or even hold such a referendum? ARe you kidding? Because I do not want the PLA to start launching a full blown assault on the island that's why, you want to bet money down on this? How much you want to bet that if the island regardless of pass or not pass, simply declared to hold a referendum on declaration of independence that the PLA is going to start shooting over missles and sending in the red stars?

Secondly, Taiwan is China, you know, aka The Republic of China.